Vi ; ; *  ■ 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 
AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

BOOKSTACKS 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/americaworldwar00roos_1 


AMERICA 


AND 

THE  WORLD  WAR 


BY  THEODORE  ROOSEVELT 


A  book-lover’s  holidays  in  the  open 

THROUGH  THE  BRAZILIAN  WILDERNESS 
AFRICAN  GAME  TRAILS.  2  vols. 

OUTDOOR  PASTIMES  OF  AN  AMERICAN  HUNTER 
THE  ROUGH  RIDERS 

Profusely  Illustrated 

THROUGH  THE  BRAZILIAN  WILDERNESS 
AFRICAN  GAME  TRAILS 

OUTDOOR  PASTIMES  OF  AN  AMERICAN  HUNTER 

LIFE-HISTORIES  OF  AFRICAN  GAME  ANIMALS 
With  Edmund  Heller 


THE  GREAT  ADVENTURE 
AMERICA  AND  THE  WORLD  WAR 
HISTORY  AS  LITERATURE 
OLIVER  CROMWELL 


THE  ROOSEVELT  BOOK.  Selections  from  the 
Writings  of  Theodore  Roosevelt 


THE  ELKHORN  EDITION.  Collected  Works  of 
Theodore  Roosevelt.  28  volumes.  Illustrated. 


CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 


-  AMERICA 

AND 

THE  WORLD  WAR 


BY 

THEODORE  ROOSEVELT 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 

1919 


Copyright,  1915,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 


Published  January,  1915 
Second  Impression,  April  23,  1915 
Third  Impression,  July  27,  1916 
Fourth  Impression,  November  1, 1917 
Fifth  Impression,  February,  1919 


\ 


\ 


PRAYER  FOR  PEACE 


Now  these  were  visions  in  the  night  of  war: 

I  prayed  for  peace;  God,  answering  my  prayer, 

Sent  down  a  grievous  plague  on  humankind, 

A  black  and  tumorous  plague  that  softly  slew 
Till  nations  and  their  armies  were  no  more — 

And  there  was  perfect  peace  .  .  . 

But  I  awoke,  wroth  with  high  God  and  prayer. 

I  prayed  for  peace;  God,  answering  my  prayer, 
Decreed  the  Truce  of  Life: — Wings  in  the  sky 
Fluttered  and  fell;  the  quick,  bright  ocean  things 
Sank  to  the  ooze;  the  footprints  in  the  woods 
Vanished;  the  freed  brute  from  the  abattoir 
Starved  on  green  pastures;  and  within  the  blood 
The  death-work  at  the  root  of  living  ceased; 

And  men  gnawed  clods  and  stones,  blasphemed  and 
died — 

And  there  was  perfect  peace  .  .  . 

But  I  awoke,  wroth  with  high  God  and  prayer. 

I  prayed  for  peace;  God,  answering  my  prayer, 
Bowed  the  free  neck  beneath  a  yoke  of  steel, 
Dumbed  the  free  voice  that  springs  in  lyric  speech, 
Killed  the  free  art  that  glows  on  all  mankind, 

And  made  one  iron  nation  lord  of  earth, 

Which  in  the  monstrous  matrix  of  its  will 
Moulded  a  spawn  of  slaves.  There  was  One  Might 
And  there  was  perfect  peace  .  .  . 

But  I  awoke,  wroth  with  high  God  and  prayer. 

I  prayed  for  peace;  God,  answering  my  prayer, 
Palsied  all  flesh  with  bitter  fear  of  death. 


v 


PRAYER  FOR  PEACE 


VI 


The  shuddering  slayers  fled  to  town  and  field 
Beset  with  carrion  visions,  foul  decay. 

And  sickening  taints  of  air  that  made  the  earth 
One  charnel  of  the  shrivelled  lines  of  war. 

And  through  all  flesh  that  omnipresent  fear 
Became  the  strangling  fingers  of  a  hand 
That  choked  aspiring  thought  and  brave  belief 
And  love  of  loveliness  and  selfless  deed 
Till  flesh  was  all,  flesh  wallowing,  styed  in  fear, 

In  festering  fear  that  stank  beyond  the  stars — 

And  there  was  perfect  peace  .  .  . 

But  I  awoke,  wroth  with  high  God  and  prayer. 

I  prayed  for  peace;  God,  answering  my  prayer, 
Spake  very  softly  of  forgotten  things, 

Spake  very  softly  old  remembered  words 
Sweet  as  young  starlight.  Rose  to  heaven  again 
The  mystic  challenge  of  the  Nazarene, 

That  deathless  affirmation: — Man  in  God 
And  God  in  man  willing  the  God  to  be  .  .  . 

And  there  was  war  and  peace,  and  peace  and  war, 
Full  year  and  lean,  joy,  anguish,  life  and  death, 
Doing  their  work  on  the  evolving  soul, 

The  soul  of  man  in  God  and  God  in  man. 

For  death  is  nothing  in  the  sum  of  things, 

And  life  is  nothing  in  the  sum  of  things, 

And  flesh  is  nothing  in  the  sum  of  things, 

But  man  in  God  is  all  and  God  in  man, 

Will  merged  in  will,  love  immanent  in  love, 

Moving  through  visioned  vistas  to  one  goal- 
The  goal  of  man  in  God  and  God  in  man, 

And  of  all  life  in  God  and  God  in  life — 

The  far  fruition  of  our  earthly  prayer, 

“Thy  will  be  done !”  .  .  .  There  is  no  other  peace ! 

William  Samuel  Johnson. 


FOREWORD 


In  the  New  York  Evening  Post  for  September 
30,  18x4,  a  correspondent  writes  from  Washing¬ 
ton  that  on  the  ruins  of  the  Capitol,  which  had 
just  been  burned  by  a  small  British  army,  various 
disgusted  patriots  had  written  sentences  which 
included  the  following:  “Fruits  of  war  without 
preparation”  and  “Mirror  of  democracy.”  A 
century  later,  in  December,  1914,  the  same 
paper,  ardently  championing  the  policy  of  na¬ 
tional  unpreparedness  and  claiming  that  democ¬ 
racy  was  incompatible  with  preparedness  against 
war,  declared  that  it  was  moved  to  tears  by  its 
pleasure  in  the  similar  championship  of  the  same 
policy  contained  in  President  Wilson’s  just -pub¬ 
lished  message  to  Congress.  The  message  is  for 
the  most  part  couched  in  terms  of  adroit  and 
dexterous,  and  usually  indirect,  suggestion,  and 
carefully  avoids  downright,  or  indeed  straight¬ 
forward,  statement  of  policy— the  meaning  being 
conveyed  in  questions  and  hints,  often  so  veiled 
and  so  obscure  as  to  make  it  possible  to  draw 
contradictory  conclusions  from  the  words  used. 
There  are,  however,  fairly  clear  statements  that  we 


vn 


FOREWORD 


•  •  • 
vm 

are  “not  to  depend  upon  a  standing  army  nor 
yet  upon  a  reserve  army,”  nor  upon  any  efficient 
system  of  universal  training  for  our  young  men, 
but  upon  vague  and  unformulated  plans  for  en¬ 
couraging  volunteer  aid  for  militia  service  by  mak¬ 
ing  it  “as  attractive  as  possible ’ ’ !  The  message 
contains  such  sentences  as  that  the  President 
“hopes”  that  “some  of  the  finer  passions”  of 
the  American  people  “are  in  his  own  heart”; 
that  “dread  of  the  power  of  any  other  nation 
we  are  incapable  of”;  such  sentences  as,  shall 
we  “be  prepared  to  defend  ourselves  against 
attack  ?  We  have  always  found  means  to  do 
that,  and  shall  find  them  whenever  it  is  neces¬ 
sary,”  and  “if  asked,  are  you  ready  to  defend 
yourself?  we  reply,  most  assuredly,  to  the  utmost.” 
It  is  difficult  for  a  serious  and  patriotic  citizen  to 
understand  how  the  President  could  have  been 
willing  to  make  such  statements  as  these.  Every 
student  even  of  elementary  American  history 
knows  that  in  our  last  foreign  war  with  a  for¬ 
midable  opponent,  that  of  1812,  reliance  on  the 
principles  President  Wilson  now  advocates  brought 
us  to  the  verge  of  national  ruin  and  of  the  break-up 
of  the  Union.  The  President  must  know  that  at 
that  time  we  had  not  “found  means”  even  to 
defend  the  capital  city  in  which  he  was  writing 
his  message.  He  ought  to  know  that  at  the  pres¬ 
ent  time,  thanks  largely  to  his  own  actions,  we 


FOREWORD 


ix 

are  not  “ready  to  defend  ourselves”  at  all,  not 
to  speak  of  defending  ourselves  “to  the  utmost.” 
In  a  state  paper  subtle  prettiness  of  phrase  does 
not  offset  misteaching  of  the  vital  facts  of  na¬ 
tional  history. 

In  1814  this  nation  was  paying  for  its  folly  in 
having  for  fourteen  years  conducted  its  foreign 
policy,  and  refused  to  prepare  for  defense  against 
possible  foreign  foes,  in  accordance  with  the  views 
of  the  ultrapacificists  of  that  day.  It  behooves 
us  now,  in  the  presence  of  a  world  war  even  vaster 
and  more  terrible  than  the  world  war  of  the  early 
nineteenth  century,  to  beware  of  taking  the  advice 
of  the  equally  foolish  pacificists  of  our  owrn  day. 
To  follow  their  advice  at  the  present  time  might 
expose  our  democracy  to  far  greater  disaster  than 
was  brought  upon  it  by  its  disregard  of  Wash¬ 
ington’s  maxim,  and  its  failure  to  secure  peace 
by  preparing  against  war,  a  hundred  years  ago. 

In  his  message  President  Wilson  has  expressed 
his  laudable  desire  that  this  country,  naturally 
through  its  President,  may  act  as  mediator  to 
bring  peace  among  the  great  European  powers. 
With  this  end  in  view  he,  in  his  message,  deprecates 
our  taking  any  efficient  steps  to  prepare  means  for 
our  own  defense,  lest  such  action  might  give  a 
wrong  impression  to  the  great  warring  powers. 
Furthermore,  in  his  overanxiety  not  to  offend  the 
powerful  who  have  done  wrong,  he  scrupulously 


X 


FOREWORD 


refrains  from  saying  one  word  on  behalf  of  the 
weak  who  have  suffered  wrong.  He  makes  no 
allusion  to  the  violation  of  the  Hague  conventions 
at  Belgium’s  expense,  although  this  nation  had 
solemnly  undertaken  to  be  a  guarantor  of  those 
conventions.  He  makes  no  protest  against  the 
cruel  wrongs  Belgium  has  suffered.  He  says  not 
one  word  about  the  need,  in  the  interests  of  true 
peace,  of  the  only  peace  worth  having,  that  steps 
should  be  taken  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  such 
wrongs  in  the  future. 

This  is  not  right.  It  is  not  just  to  the 
weaker  nations  of  the  earth.  It  comes  perilously 
near  a  betrayal  of  our  own  interests.  In  his 
laudable  anxiety  to  make  himself  acceptable  as  a 
mediator  to  England,  and  especially  to  Germany, 
President  Wilson  loses  sight  of  the  fact  that  his 
first  duty  is  to  the  United  States;  and,  moreover, 
desirable  though  it  is  that  his  conduct  should 
commend  him  to  Germany,  to  England,  and  to 
the  other  great  contending  powers,  he  should 
not  for  this  reason  forget  the  interests  of  the  small 
nations,  and  above  all  of  Belgium,  whose  grati¬ 
tude  can  never  mean  anything  tangible  to  him  or 
to  us,  but  which  has  suffered  a  wrong  that  in 
any  peace  negotiations  it  should  be  our  first  duty 
to  see  remedied. 

In  the  following  chapters,  substantially  repro¬ 
duced  from  articles  contributed  to  the  Wheeler 


FOREWORD 


xi 


Syndicate  and  also  to  The  Outlook,  The  Inde¬ 
pendent,  and  Everybody’s,  the  attempt  is  made  to 
draw  from  the  present  lamentable  contest  cer¬ 
tain  lessons  which  it  would  be  well  for  our  peo¬ 
ple  to  learn.  Among  them  are  the  following: 

We,  a  people  akin  to  and  yet  different  from  all 
the  peoples  of  Europe,  should  be  equally  friendly 
to  all  these  peoples  while  they  behave  well, 
should  be  courteous  to  and  considerate  of  the 
rights  of  each  of  them,  but  should  not  hesitate 
to  judge  each  and  all  of  them  by  their  conduct. 

The  kind  of  “neutrality”  which  seeks  to  pre¬ 
serve  “peace”  by  timidly  refusing  to  live  up  to 
our  plighted  word  and  to  denounce  and  take 
action  against  such  wrong  as  that  committed  in 
the  case  of  Belgium,  is  unworthy  of  an  honorable 
and  powerful  people.  Dante  reserved  a  special 
place  of  infamy  in  the  inferno  for  those  base 
angels  who  dared  side  neither  with  evil  nor  with 
good.  Peace  is  ardently  to  be  desired,  but  only 
as  the  handmaid  of  righteousness.  The  only 
peace  of  permanent  value  is  the  peace  of  right¬ 
eousness.  There  can  be  no  such  peace  until  well- 
behaved,  highly  civilized  small  nations  are  pro¬ 
tected  from  oppression  and  subjugation. 

National  promises,  made  in  treaties,  in  Hague 
conventions,  and  the  like  are  like  the  promises  of 
individuals.  The  sole  value  of  the  promise  comes 
in  the  performance.  Recklessness  in  making 


•  • 


FOREWORD 


xu 

promises  is  in  practice  almost  or  quite  as  mis¬ 
chievous  and  dishonest  as  indifference  to  keeping 
promises;  and  this  as  much  in  the  case  of  nations 
as  in  the  case  of  individuals.  Upright  men  make 
few  promises,  and  keep  those  they  make. 

All  the  actions  of  the  ultrapacificists  for  a  gen¬ 
eration  past,  all  their  peace  congresses  and  peace 
conventions,  have  amounted  to  precisely  and  ex¬ 
actly  nothing  in  advancing  the  cause  of  peace. 
The  peace  societies  of  the  ordinary  pacificist 
type  have  in  the  aggregate  failed  to  accomplish 
even  the  smallest  amount  of  good,  have  done 
nothing  whatever  for  peace,  and  the  very  small 
effect  they  have  had  on  their  own  nations  has 
been,  on  the  whole,  slightly  detrimental.  Al¬ 
though  usually  they  have  been  too  futile  to  be 
even  detrimental,  their  unfortunate  tendency  has 
so  far  been  to  make  good  men  weak  and  to  make 
virtue  a  matter  of  derision  to  strong  men.  All- 
inclusive  arbitration  treaties  of  the  kind  hitherto 
proposed  and  enacted  are  utterly  worthless,  are 
hostile  to  righteousness  and  detrimental  to  peace. 
The  Americans,  within  and  without  Congress, 
who  have  opposed  the  fortifying  of  the  Panama 
Canal  and  the  upbuilding  of  the  American  navy 
have  been  false  to  the  honor  and  the  interest  of 
the  nation  and  should  be  condemned  by  every 
high-minded  citizen. 

In  every  serious  crisis  the  present  Hague  con- 


FOREWORD 


•  •  • 


xiu 

ventions  and  the  peace  and  arbitration  and  neu¬ 
trality  treaties  of  the  existing  type  have  proved 
not  to  be  worth  the  paper  on  which  they  were 
written.  This  is  because  no  method  was  pro¬ 
vided  of  securing  their  enforcement,  of  putting 
force  behind  the  pledge.  Peace  treaties  and 
arbitration  treaties  unbacked  by  force  are  not 
merely  useless  but  mischievous  in  any  serious 
crisis. 

Treaties  must  never  be  recklessly  made;  im¬ 
proper  treaties  should  be  repudiated  long  before 
the  need  for  action  under  them  arises;  and  all 
treaties  not  thus  repudiated  in  advance  should  be 
scrupulously  kept. 

From  the  international  standpoint  the  essential 
thing  to  do  is  effectively  to  put  the  combined 
power  of  civilization  back  of  the  collective  pur¬ 
pose  of  civilization  to  secure  justice.  This  can 
be  achieved  only  by  a  world  league  for  the  peace 
of  righteousness,  which  would  guarantee  to  en¬ 
force  by  the  combined  strength  of  all  the  nations 
the  decrees  of  a  competent  and  impartial  court 
against  any  recalcitrant  and  offending  nation. 
Only  in  this  way  will  treaties  become  serious  docu¬ 
ments. 

Such  a  world  league  for  peace  is  not  now  in 
sight.  Until  it  is  created  the  prime  necessity  for 
each  free  and  liberty -loving  nation  is  to  keep  itself 
in  such  a  state  of  efficient  preparedness  as  to  be 


XIV 


FOREWORD 


able  to  defend  by  its  own  strength  both  its  honor 
and  its  vital  interest.  The  most  important 
lesson  for  the  United  States  to  learn  from  the 
present  war  is  the  vital  need  that  it  shall  at  once 
take  steps  thus  to  prepare. 

Preparedness  against  war  does  not  always 
avert  war  or  disaster  in  war  any  more  than  the 
existence  of  a  fire  department,  that  is,  of  prepared¬ 
ness  against  fire,  always  averts  fire.  But  it  is 
the  only  insurance  against  war  and  the  only  in¬ 
surance  against  overwhelming  disgrace  and  dis¬ 
aster  in  war.  Preparedness  usually  averts  war  and 
usually  prevents  disaster  in  war;  and  always 
prevents  disgrace  in  war.  Preparedness,  so  far 
from  encouraging  nations  to  go  to  war,  has  a 
marked  tendency  to  diminish  the  chance  of  war 
occurring.  Unpreparedness  has  not  the  slightest 
effect  in  averting  war.  Its  only  effect  is  immensely 
to  increase  the  likelihood  of  disgrace  and  disaster 
in  war.  The  United  States  should  immediately 
strengthen  its  navy  and  provide  for  its  steady 
training  in  purely  military  functions;  it  should 
similarly  strengthen  the  regular  army  and  pro¬ 
vide  a  reserve;  and,  furthermore,  it  should  pro¬ 
vide  for  all  the  young  men  of  the  nation  military 
training  of  the  kind  practised  by  the  free  de¬ 
mocracy  of  Switzerland.  Switzerland  is  the  least 
“militaristic”  and  most  democratic  of  republics, 
and  the  best  prepared  against  war.  If  we  follow 


FOREWORD 


xv 


her  example  we  will  be  carrying  out  the  precepts 
of  Washington. 

We  feel  no  hostility  toward  any  nation  engaged 
in  the  present  tremendous  struggle.  We  feel  an 
infinite  sadness  because  of  the  black  abyss  of  war 
into  which  all  these  nations  have  been  plunged. 
We  admire  the  heroism  they  have  shown.  We 
act  in  a  spirit  of  warm  friendliness  toward  all  of 
them,  even  when  obliged  to  protest  against  the 
wrong-doing  of  any  one  of  them. 

Our  country  should  not  shirk  its  duty  to  man¬ 
kind.  It  can  perform  this  duty  only  if  it  is  true 
to  itself.  It  can  be  true  to  itself  only  by  definitely 
resolving  to  take  the  position  of  the  just  man 
armed;  for  a  proud  and  self-respecting  nation  of 
freemen  must  scorn  to  do  wrong  to  others  and 
must  also  scorn  tamely  to  submit  to  wrong  done 
by  others. 

Theodore  Roosevelt. 

Sagamore  Hill, 

January  i,  1915. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Foreword . vii 

CHAPTER 

I.  The  Duty  of  Self-Defense  and  of 

Good  Conduct  toward  Others  i 

II.  The  Belgian  Tragedy  ....  15 

III.  Unwise  Peace  Treaties  a  Menace 

to  Righteousness . 44 

IV.  The  Causes  of  the  War  ...  60 

V.  How  to  Strive  for  World  Peace  74 

VI.  The  Peace  of  Righteousness  .  .  88 

VII.  An  International  Posse  Comita- 

TUS . 104 

VIII.  Self-Defense  without  Milita¬ 
rism  . 128 

IX.  Our  Peacemaker,  the  Navy  .  .  156 

X.  Preparedness  against  War  .  .  174 

XI.  Utopia  or  Hell? . 220 

XII.  Summing  Up . 244 


4 


4 


! 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  DUTY  OF  SELF-DEFENSE  AND  OF 
GOOD  CONDUCT  TOWARD  OTHERS 

IN  this  country  we  are  both  shocked  and 
stunned  by  the  awful  cataclysm  which  has 
engulfed  civilized  Europe.  By  only  a  few 
men  was  the  possibility  of  such  a  wide-spread 
and  hideous  disaster  even  admitted.  Most  per¬ 
sons,  even  after  it  occurred,  felt  as  if  it  was  un¬ 
believable.  They  felt  that  in  what  it  pleased 
enthusiasts  to  speak  of  as  “this  age  of  enlighten¬ 
ment”  it  was  impossible  that  primal  passion, 
working  hand  in  hand  with  the  most  modern 
scientific  organization,  should  loose  upon  the 
world  these  forces  of  dread  destruction. 

In  the  last  week  in  July  the  men  and  women  of 
the  populous  civilized  countries  of  Europe  were 
leading  their  usual  ordered  lives,  busy  and  yet 
soft,  lives  carried  on  with  comfort  and  luxury, 
with  appliances  for  ease  and  pleasure  such  as 
never  before  were  known,  lives  led  in  a  routine 
which  to  most  people  seemed  part  of  the  natural 
order  of  things,  something  which  could  not  be 
disturbed  by  shocks  such  as  the  world  knew  of 


i 


2 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


old.  A  fortnight  later  hell  yawned  under  the 
feet  of  these  hard-working  or  pleasure-seeking 
men  and  women,  and  woe  smote  them  as  it  smote 
the  peoples  we  read  of  in  the  Old  Testament  or 
in  the  histories  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Through 
the  rents  in  our  smiling  surface  of  civilization  the 
volcanic  fires  beneath  gleamed  red  in  the  gloom. 

What  occurred  in  Europe  is  on  a  giant  scale 
like  the  disaster  to  the  Titanic.  One  moment 
the  great  ship  was  speeding  across  the  ocean, 
equipped  with  every  device  for  comfort,  safety, 
and  luxury.  The  men  in  her  stoke-hold  and 
steerage  were  more  comfortable  than  the  most 
luxurious  travellers  of  a  century  ago.  The  peo¬ 
ple  in  her  first-class  cabins  enjoyed  every  luxury 
that  a  luxurious  city  life  could  demand  and  were 
screened  not  only  from  danger  but  from  the 
least  discomfort  or  annoyance.  Suddenly,  in  one 
awful  and  shattering  moment,  death  smote  the 
floating  host,  so  busy  with  work  and  play.  They 
were  in  that  moment  shot  back  through  immea¬ 
surable  ages.  At  one  stroke  they  were  hurled 
from  a  life  of  effortless  ease  back  into  elemental 
disaster;  to  disaster  in  which  baseness  showed 
.naked,  and  heroism  burned  like  a  flame  of  light. 

In  the  face  of  a  calamity  so  world-wide  as  the 
present  war,  it  behooves  us  all  to  keep  our  heads 
clear  and  to  read  aright  the  lessons  taught  us; 
for  we  ourselves  may  suffer  dreadful  penalties  if 


THE  DUTY  OF  SELF-DEFENSE  3 


we  read  these  lessons  wrong.  The  temptation 
always  is  only  to  half -learn  such  a  lesson,  for  a 
half-truth  is  always  simple,  whereas  the  whole 
truth  is  very,  very  difficult.  Unfortunately,  a 
half-truth,  if  applied,  may  turn  out  to  be  the 
most  dangerous  type  of  falsehood. 

Now,  our  business  here  in  America  in  the  face 
of  this  cataclysm  is  twofold.  In  the  first  place  it 
is  imperative  that  we  shall  take  the  steps  neces¬ 
sary  in  order,  by  our  own  strength  and  wisdom,  to 
safeguard  ourselves  against  such  disaster  as  has 
occurred  in  Europe.  Events  have  shown  that 
peace  treaties,  arbitration  treaties,  neutrality 
treaties,  Hague  treaties,  and  the  like  as  at  pres¬ 
ent  existing,  offer  not  even  the  smallest  protec¬ 
tion  against  such  disasters.  The  prime  duty  of 
the  moment  is  therefore  to  keep  Uncle  Sam  in 
such  a  position  that  by  his  own  stout  heart  and 
ready  hand  he  can  defend  the  vital  honor  and 
vital  interest  of  the  American  people. 

But  this  is  not  our  only  duty,  even  although  it 
is  the  only  duty  we  can  immediately  perform. 
The  horror  of  what  has  occurred  in  Europe,  which 
has  drawn  into  the  maelstrom  of  war  large  parts 
of  Asia,  Africa,  Australasia,  and  even  America,  is 
altogether  too  great  to  permit  us  to  rest  supine 
without  endeavoring  to  prevent  its  repetition. 
We  are  not  to  be  excused  if  we  do  not  make  a 
resolute  and  intelligent  effort  to  devise  some 


4 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


scheme  which  will  minimize  the  chance  for  a  re¬ 
currence  of  such  horror  in  the  future  and  which 
will  at  least  limit  and  alleviate  it  if  it  should  occur. 
In  other  words,  it  is  our  duty  to  try  to  devise 
some  efficient  plan  for  securing  the  peace  of 
righteousness  throughout  the  world. 

That  any  plan  will  surely  and  automatically 
bring  peace  we  cannot  promise.  Nevertheless,  I 
think  a  plan  can  be  devised  which  will  render  it 
far  more  difficult  than  at  present  to  plunge  us 
into  a  world  war  and  far  more  easy  than  at  pres¬ 
ent  to  find  workable  and  practical  substitutes 
even  for  ordinary  war.  In  order  to  do  this,  how¬ 
ever,  it  is  necessary  that  we  shall  fearlessly  look 
facts  in  the  face.  We  cannot  devise  methods  for 
securing  peace  which  will  actually  work  unless  we 
are  in  good  faith  willing  to  face  the  fact  that  the 
present  all-inclusive  arbitration  treaties,  peace 
conferences,  and  the  like,  upon  which  our  well- 
meaning  pacificists  have  pinned  so  much  hope, 
have  proved  utterly  worthless  under  serious 
strain.  We  must  face  this  fact  and  clearly  under¬ 
stand  the  reason  for  it  before  we  can  advance  an 
adequate  remedy. 

It  is  even  more  important  not  to  pay  heed  to 
the  pathetic  infatuation  of  the  well-meaning  per¬ 
sons  who  declare  that  this  is  “the  last  great  war.” 
During  the  last  century  such  assertions  have 
been  made  again  and  again  after  the  close  of 


THE  DUTY  OF  SELF-DEFENSE  5 


every  great  war.  They  represent  nothing  but  an 
amiable  fatuity.  The  strong  men  of  the  United 
States  must  protect  the  feeble;  but  they  must  not 
trust  for  guidance  to  the  feeble. 

In  these  chapters  I  desire  to  ask  my  fellow 
countrymen  and  countrywomen  to  consider  the 
various  lessons  which  are  being  writ  in  letters  of 
blood  and  steel  before  our  eyes.  I  wish  to  ask 
their  consideration,  first,  of  the  immediate  need 
that  we  shall  realize  the  utter  hopelessness  under 
actually  existing  conditions  of  our  trusting  for 
our  safety  merely  to  the  good-will  of  other  powers 
or  to  treaties  or  other  “bits  of  paper”  or  to  any¬ 
thing  except  our  own  steadfast  courage  and  pre¬ 
paredness.  Second,  I  wish  to  point  out  what  a 
complicated  and  difficult  thing  it  is  to  work  for 
peace  and  how  difficult  it  may  be  to  combine 
doing  one’s  duty  in  the  endeavor  to  bring  peace 
for  others  without  failing  in  one’s  duty  to  secure 
peace  for  one’s  self;  and  therefore  I  wish  to  point 
out  how  unwise  it  is  to  make  foolish  promises 
which  under  great  strain  it  would  be  impossible 
to  keep. 

Third,  I  wish  to  try  to  give  practical  expression 
to  what  I  know  is  the  hope  of  the  great  body  of 
our  people.  We  should  endeavor  to  devise  some 
method  of  action,  in  common  with  other  nations, 
whereby  there  shall  be  at  least  a  reasonable 
chance  of  securing  world  peace  and,  in  any  event, 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


t> 

of  narrowing  the  sphere  of  possible  war  and  its 
horrors.  To  do  this  it  is  equally  necessary  un¬ 
flinchingly  to  antagonize  the  position  of  the  men 
who  believe  in  nothing  but  brute  force  exercised 
without  regard  to  the  rights  of  other  nations,  and 
unhesitatingly  to  condemn  the  well-meaning  but 
unwise  persons  who  seek  to  mislead  our  people 
into  the  belief  that  treaties,  mere  bits  of  paper, 
when  unbacked  by  force  and  when  there  is  no 
one  responsible  for  their  enforcement,  can  be  of 
the  slightest  use  in  a  serious  crisis.  Force  un¬ 
backed  by  righteousness  is  abhorrent.  The  effort 
to  substitute  for  it  vague  declamation  for  right¬ 
eousness  unbacked  by  force  is  silly.  The  police¬ 
man  must  be  put  back  of  the  judge  in  interna¬ 
tional  law  just  as  he  is  back  of  the  judge  in  mu¬ 
nicipal  law.  The  effective  power  of  civilization 
must  be  put  back  of  civilization’s  collective  pur¬ 
pose  to  secure  reasonable  justice  between  nation 
and  nation. 

First,  consider  the  lessons  taught  by  this  war 
as  to  the  absolute  need  under  existing  conditions 
of  our  being  willing,  ready,  and  able  to  defend 
ourselves  from  unjust  attack.  What  has  befallen 
Belgium  and  Luxembourg — not  to  speak  of  China 
—during  the  past  five  months  shows  the  utter 
hopelessness  of  trusting  to  any  treaties,  no  matter 
how  well  meant,  unless  back  of  them  lies  power 
sufficient  to  secure  their  enforcement. 


THE  DUTY  OF  SELF-DEFENSE  7 


At  the  outset  let  me  explain  with  all  possible 
emphasis  that  in  what  I  am  about  to  say  at  this 
.time  I  am  not  criticising  nor  taking  sides  with 
any  one  of  the  chief  combatants  in  either  group  of 
warring  powers,  so  far  as  the  relations  between 
and  among  these  chief  powers  themselves  are 
concerned.  The  causes  for  the  present  contest 
stretch  into  the  immemorial  past.  As  far  as  the 
present  generations  of  Germans,  Frenchmen, 
Russians,  Austrians,  and  Servians  are  concerned, 
their  actions  have  been  determined  by  deeds  done 
and  left  undone  by  many  generations  in  the  past. 
Not  only  the  sovereigns  but  the  peoples  engaged 
on  each  side  believe  sincerely  in  the  justice  of 
their  several  causes.  This  is  convincingly  shown 
by  the  action  of  the  Socialists  in  Germany,  France, 
and  Belgium.  Of  all  latter-day  political  parties 
the  Socialist  is  the  one  in  which  international 
brotherhood  is  most  dwelt  upon,  while  interna¬ 
tional  obligations  are  placed  on  a  par  with  national 
obligations.  Yet  the  Socialists  in  Germany  and 
the  Socialists  in  France  and  Belgium  have  all 
alike  thrown  themselves  into  this  contest  with 
the  same  enthusiasm  and,  indeed,  the  same  bitter¬ 
ness  as  the  rest  of  their  countrymen.  I  am  not 
at  this  moment  primarily  concerned  with  passing 
judgment  upon  any  of  the  powers.  I  am  merely 
instancing  certain  things  that  have  occurred,  be¬ 
cause  of  the  vital  importance  that  we  as  a  people 


8 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


should  take  to  heart  the  lessons  taught  by  these 
occurrences. 

At  the  end  of  July  Belgium  and  Luxembourg 
were  independent  nations.  By  treaties  executed 
in  1832  and  1867  their  neutrality  had  been  guar¬ 
anteed  by  the  great  nations  round  about  them — 
Germany,  France,  and  England.  Their  neutrality 
was  thus  guaranteed  with  the  express  purpose  of 
keeping  them  at  peace  and  preventing  any  in¬ 
vasion  of  their  territory  during  war.  Luxem¬ 
bourg  built  no  fortifications  and  raised  no  army, 
trusting  entirely  to  the  pledged  faith  of  her 
neighbors.  Belgium,  an  extremely  thrifty,  pro¬ 
gressive,  and  prosperous  industrial  country,  whose 
people  are  exceptionally  hard-working  and  law- 
abiding,  raised  an  army  and  built  forts  for  purely 
defensive  purposes.  Neither  nation  committed 
the  smallest  act  of  hostility  or  aggression  against 
any  one  of  its  neighbors.  Each  behaved  with 
absolute  propriety.  Each  wras  absolutely  innocent 
of  the  slightest  wrong-doing.  Neither  has  the 
very  smallest  responsibility  for  the  disaster  that 
has  overwhelmed  her.  Nevertheless  as  soon  as 
the  war  broke  out  the  territories  of  both  were 
overrun. 

Luxembourg  made  no  resistance.  It  is  now 
practically  incorporated  in  Germany.  Other 
nations  have  almost  forgotten  its  existence  and 
not  the  slightest  attention  has  been  paid  to  its 


THE  DUTY  OF  SELF-DEFENSE  9 


fate  simply  because  it  did  not  fight,  simply  be¬ 
cause  it  trusted  solely  to  peaceful  measures  and 
to  the  treaties  which  were  supposed  to  guarantee 
it  against  harm.  The  eyes  of  the  world,  however, 
are  on  Belgium  because  the  Belgians  have  fought 
hard  and  gallantly  for  all  that  makes  life  best 
worth  having  to  honorable  men  and  women. 
In  consequence,  Belgium  has  been  trampled 
under  foot.  At  this  moment  not  only  her  men 
but  her  women  and  children  are  enduring  misery 
so  dreadful  that  it  is  hard  for  us  who  live  at  peace 
to  visualize  it  to  ourselves. 

The  fate  of  Luxembourg  and  of  Belgium  offers 
an  instructive  commentary  on  the  folly  of  the 
well-meaning  people  who  a  few  years  ago  insisted 
that  the  Panama  Canal  should  not  be  fortified 
and  that  we  should  trust  to  international  treaties 
to  protect  it.  After  what  has  occurred  in  Europe 
no  sane  man  has  any  excuse  for  believing  that 
such  treaties  would  avail  us  in  our  hour  of  need 
any  more  than  they  have  availed  Belgium  and 
Luxembourg — and,  for  that  matter,  Korea  and 
China — in  their  hours  of  need. 

If  a  great  world  war  should  arise  or  if  a  great 
world-power  were  at  war  with  us  under  conditions 
that  made  it  desirable  for  other  nations  not  to  be 
drawn  into  the  quarrel,  any  step  that  the  hostile 
nation’s  real  or  fancied  need  demanded  would 
unquestionably  be  taken,  and  any  treaty  that 


IO 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


stood  in  the  way  would  be  treated  as  so  much 
waste  paper  except  so  far  as  we  could  back  it  by 
force.  If  under  such  circumstances  Panama  is 
retained  and  controlled  by  us,  it  will  be  because 
our  forts  and  garrison  and  our  fleets  on  the  ocean 
make  it  unsafe  to  meddle  with  the  canal  and  the 
canal  zone.  Were  it  only  protected  by  a  treaty 
— that  is,  unless  behind  the  treaty  lav  both  force 

9  *  J 

and  the  readiness  to  use  force — the  canal  would 
not  be  safe  for  twenty- four  hours.  Moreover, 
in  such  case,  the  real  blame  would  lie  at  our  own 
doors.  We  would  not  be  helped  at  all,  we  would 
merely  make  ourselves  objects  of  derision,  if 
under  these  circumstances  we  screamed  and  clam¬ 
ored  about  the  iniquity  of  those  who  violated  the 
treaty  and  took  possession  of  Panama.  The 
blame  would  rightly  be  placed  by  the  world  upon 
our  own  supine  folly,  upon  our  own  timidity  and 
weakness,  and  we  would  be  adjudged  unfit  to  hold 
what  we  had  shown  ourselves  too  soft  and  too 
short-sighted  to  retain. 

The  most  obvious  lesson  taught  by  what  has 
occurred  is  the  utter  worthlessness  of  treaties 
unless  backed  by  force.  It  is  evident  that  as 
things  are  now,  all-inclusive  arbitration  treaties, 
neutrality  treaties,  treaties  of  alliance,  and  the 
like  do  not  serve  one  particle  of  good  in  protect¬ 
ing  a  peaceful  nation  when  some  great  military 
power  deems  its  vital  needs  at  stake,  unless  the 


THE  DUTY  OF  SELF-DEFENSE  1 1 


rights  of  this  peaceful  nation  are  backed  by  force. 
The  devastation  of  Belgium,  the  burning  of  Lou¬ 
vain,  the  holding  of  Brussels  to  heavy  ransom, 
the  killing  of  women  and  children,  the  wrecking 
of  houses  in  Antwerp  by  bombs  from  air-ships 
have  excited  genuine  sympathy  among  neutral 
nations.  But  no  neutral  nation  has  protested; 
and  while  unquestionably  a  neutral  nation  like 
the  United  States  ought  to  have  protested,  yet 
the  only  certain  way  to  make  such  a  protest 
effective  would  be  to  put  force  back  of  it.  Let 
our  people  remember  that  what  has  been  done  to 
Belgium  would  unquestionably  be  done  to  us  by 
any  great  military  power  with  which  we  were 
drawn  into  war,  no  matter  how  just  our  cause. 
Moreover,  it  would  be  done  without  any  more 
protest  on  the  part  of  neutral  nations  than  we 
have  ourselves  made  in  the  case  of  Belgium. 

If,  as  an  aftermath  of  this  war,  some  great  Old- 
World  power  or  combination  of  powers  made  war 
on  us  because  we  objected  to  their  taking  and 
fortifying  Magdalena  Bay  or  St.  Thomas,  our 
chance  of  securing  justice  would  rest  exclusively 
on  the  efficiency  of  our  fleet  and  army,  especially 
the  fleet.  No  arbitration  treaties,  or  peace  trea¬ 
ties,  of  the  kind  recently  negotiated  at  Washing¬ 
ton  by  the  bushelful,  and  no  tepid  good-will  of 
neutral  powers,  would  help  us  in  even  the  small¬ 
est  degree.  If  our  fleet  were  conquered,  New 


12 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


York  and  San  Francisco  would  be  seized  and 
probably  each  would  be  destroyed  as  Louvain 
was  destroyed  unless  it  were  put  to  ransom  as 
Brussels  has  been  put  to  ransom.  Under  such 
circumstances  outside  powers  would  undoubtedly 
remain  neutral  exactly  as  we  have  remained  neu¬ 
tral  as  regards  Belgium. 

Under  such  conditions  my  own  view  is  very 
strongly  that  the  national  interest  would  be  best 
served  by  refusing  the  payment  of  all  ransom 
and  accepting  the  destruction  of  the  cities  and 
then  continuing  the  war  until  by  our  own  strength 
and  indomitable  will  we  had  exacted  ample 
atonement  from  our  foes.  This  would  be  a 
terrible  price  to  pay  for  unpreparedness;  and 
those  responsible  for  the  unpreparedness  would 
thereby  be  proved  guilty  of  a  crime  against  the 
nation.  Upon  them  would  rest  the  guilt  of  all 
the  blood  and  misery.  The  innocent  would  have 
to  atone  for  their  folly  and  strong  men  would 
have  to  undo  and  offset  it  by  submitting  to  the 
destruction  of  our  cities  rather  than  consent  to 
save  them  by  paying  money  which  would  be 
used  to  prosecute  the  war  against  the  rest  of  the 
country.  If  our  people  are  wise  and  far-sighted 
and  if  they  still  have  in  their  blood  the  iron  of 
the  men  who  fought  under  Grant  and  Lee,  they 
will,  in  the  event  of  such  a  war,  insist  upon  this 
price  being  paid,  upon  this  course  being  followed. 


THE  DUTY  OF  SELF-DEFENSE  13 


They  will  then  in  the  end  exact,  from  the  nation 
which  assails  us,  atonement  for  the  misery  and 
redress  for  the  wrong  done.  They  will  not  rely 
upon  the  ineffective  good-will  of  neutral  outsiders 
They  will  show  a  temper  that  will  make  our  foes 
think  twice  before  meddling  with  us  again. 

The  great  danger  to  peace  so  far  as  this  coun 
try  is  concerned  arises  from  such  pacificists  as 
those  who  have  made  and  applauded  our  recent 
all-inclusive  arbitration  treaties,  who  advocate 
the  abandonment  of  our  policy  of  building  battle¬ 
ships  and  the  refusal  to  fortify  the  Panama  Canal 
It  is  always  possible  that  these  persons  may  suc¬ 
ceed  in  impressing  foreign  nations  with  the  belief 
that  they  represent  our  people.  If  they  ever  do 
succeed  in  creating  this  conviction  in  the  minds 
of  other  nations,  the  fate  of  the  United  States 
will  speedily  be  that  of  China  and  Luxembourg,  or 
else  it  will  be  saved  therefrom  only  by  long-drawn 
war,  accompanied  by  incredible  bloodshed  and 
disaster. 

It  is  those  among  us  who  would  go  to  the  front 
in  such  event — as  I  and  my  four  sons  would  go — 
who  are  the  really  far-sighted  and  earnest  friends 
of  peace.  We  desire  measures  taken  in  the  real 
interest  of  peace  because  we,  who  at  need  would 
fight,  but  who  earnestly  hope  never  to  be  forced 
to  fight,  have  most  at  stake  in  keeping  peace. 
We  object  to  the  actions  of  those  who  do  most 


14 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


talking  about  the  necessity  of  peace  because  we 
think  they  are  really  a  menace  to  the  just  and 
honorable  peace  which  alone  this  country  will  in 
the  long  run  support.  We  object  to  their  actions 
because  we  believe  they  represent  a  course  of 
conduct  which  may  at  any  time  produce  a  war 
in  which  we  and  not  they  would  labor  and  suffer. 

In  such  a  war  the  prime  fact  to  be  remembered 
is  that  the  men  really  responsible  for  it  would  not 
be  those  who  would  pay  the  penalty.  The  ultra¬ 
pacificists  are  rarely  men  who  go  to  battle.  Their 
fault  or  their  folly  would  be  expiated  by  the  blood 
of  countless  thousands  of  plain  and  decent  Amer¬ 
ican  citizens  of  the  stamp  of  those,  North  and 
South  alike,  who  in  the  Civil  War  laid  down  all 
they  had,  including  life  itself,  in  battling  for  the 
right  as  it  was  given  to  them  to  see  the  right. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 

PEACE  is  worthless  unless  it  serves  the 
cause  of  righteousness.  Peace  which  con¬ 
secrates  militarism  is  of  small  service. 
Peace  obtained  by  crushing  the  liberty  and  life 
of  just  and  unoffending  peoples  is  as  cruel  as  the 
most  cruel  war.  It  should  ever  be  our  honorable 
effort  to  serve  one  of  the  world’s  most  vital  needs 
by  doing  all  in  our  power  to  bring  about  conditions 
which  will  give  some  effective  protection  to  weak 
or  small  nations  which  themselves  keep  order 
and  act  with  justice  toward  the  rest  of  mankind. 
There  can  be  no  higher  international  duty  than 
to  safeguard  the  existence  and  independence  of 
industrious,  orderly  states,  with  a  high  personal 
and  national  standard  of  conduct,  but  without 
the  military  force  of  the  great  powers;  states, 
for  instance,  such  as  Belgium,  Holland,  Switzer¬ 
land,  the  Scandinavian  countries,  Uruguay,  and 
others.  A  peace  which  left  Belgium’s  wrongs  un¬ 
redressed  and  which  did  not  provide  against  the 
recurrence  of  such  wrongs  as  those  from  which 
she  has  suffered  would  not  be  a  real  peace. 

is 


i6 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


As  regards  the  actions  of  most  of  the  com¬ 
batants  in  the  hideous  world-wide  war  now  raging 
it  is  possible  sincerely  to  take  and  defend  either 
of  the  opposite  views  concerning  their  actions. 
The  causes  of  any  such  great  and  terrible  contest 
almost  always  lie  far  back  in  the  past,  and  the 
seeming  immediate  cause  is  usually  itself  in  major 
part  merely  an  effect  of  many  preceding  causes. 
The  assassination  of  the  heir  to  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  throne  was  partly  or  largely  due  to 
the  existence  of  political  and  often  murderous 
secret  societies  in  Servia  which  the  Servian 
government  did  not  suppress;  and  it  did  not  sup¬ 
press  them  because  the  “bondage”  of  the  men 
and  women  of  the  Servian  race  in  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina  to  Austria  was  such  a  source  of  ever¬ 
present  irritation  to  the  Servians  that  their  own 
government  was  powerless  to  restrain  them. 
Strong  arguments  can  be  advanced  on  both  the 
Austrian  and  the  Servian  sides  as  regards  this 
initial  cause  of  the  present  world-wide  war. 

Again,  when  once  the  war  was  started  between 
Austria  and  Servia,  it  can  well  be  argued  that  it 
was  impossible  for  Russia  not  to  take  part.  Had 
she  not  done  so,  she  would  have  forfeited  her 
claims  to  the  leadership  of  the  smaller  Slav  peo¬ 
ples;  and  the  leading  Russian  liberals  enthusias¬ 
tically  support  the  Russian  government  in  this 
matter,  asserting  that  Russia’s  triumph  in  this 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


1 7 


particular  struggle  means  a  check  to  militarism, 
a  stride  toward  greater  freedom,  and  an  advance 
in  justice  toward  the  Pole,  the  Jew,  the  Finn, 
and  the  people  of  the  Caucasus. 

When  Russia  took  part  it  may  well  be  argued 
that  it  was  impossible  for  Germany  not  to  come 
to  the  defense  of  Austria,  and  that  disaster  would 
surely  have  attended  her  arms  had  she  not  fol¬ 
lowed  the  course  she  actually  did  follow  as  re¬ 
gards  her  opponents  on  her  western  frontier.  As 
for  her  wonderful  efficiency — her  equipment,  the 
foresight  and  decision  of  her  General  Staff,  her 
instantaneous  action,  her  indomitable  persistence 
— there  can  be  nothing  but  the  praise  and  ad¬ 
miration  due  a  stern,  virile,  and  masterful  peo¬ 
ple,  a  people  entitled  to  hearty  respect  for  their 
patriotism  and  far-seeing  self-devotion. 

Yet  again,  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  see  how 
France  could  have  acted  otherwise  than  as  she 
did  act.  She  had  done  nothing  to  provoke  the 
crisis,  even  although  it  be  admitted  that  in  the 
end  she  was  certain  to  side  with  Russia.  War 
was  not  declared  by  her,  but  against  her,  and  she 
could  not  have  escaped  it  save  by  having  pursued 
in  the  past,  and  by  willingness  to  pursue  in  the 
future,  a  course  which  would  have  left  her  as 
helpless  as  Luxembourg — and  Luxembourg’s  fate 
shows  that  helplessness  does  not  offer  the  small¬ 
est  guarantee  of  peace. 


i8 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


When  once  Belgium  was  invaded,  every  cir¬ 
cumstance  of  national  honor  and  interest  forced 
England  to  act  precisely  as  she  did  act.  She 
could  not  have  held  up  her  head  among  nations 
had  she  acted  otherwise.  In  particular,  she  is 
entitled  to  the  praise  of  all  true  lovers  of  peace, 
for  it  is  only  by  action  such  as  she  took  that 
neutrality  treaties  and  treaties  guaranteeing  the 
rights  of  small  powers  will  ever  be  given  any 
value.  The  actions  of  Sir  Edward  Grey  as  he 
guided  Britain’s  foreign  policy  showed  adherence 
to  lofty  standards  of  right  combined  with  firm¬ 
ness  of  courage  under  great  strain.  The  British 
position,  and  incidentally  the  German  position, 
are  tersely  stated  in  the  following  extract  from 
the  report  of  Sir  Edward  Goschen,  who  at  the 
outset  of  the  war  was  British  ambassador  in 
Berlin.  The  report,  in  speaking  of  the  inter¬ 
view  between  the  ambassador  and  the  German 
imperial  chancellor,  Herr  von  Bethmann-Hollweg, 
says: 

The  chancellor  [spoke]  about  twenty  minutes.  He 
said  the  step  taken  by  Great  Britain  was  terrible  to  a 
degree.  Just  for  a  word,  “neutrality,”  a  word  which  in 
war  time  had  been  so  often  disregarded,  just  for  a  scrap 
of  paper,  Great  Britain  was  going  to  make  war  on  a 
kindred  nation.  What  we  had  done  was  unthinkable. 
It  was  like  striking  a  man  from  behind  while  he  was 
fighting  for  his  life  against  two  assailants. 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


19 


I  protested  strongly  against  this  statement,  and  said 
that  in  the  same  way  as  he  wished  me  to  understand 
that  for  strategical  reasons  it  was  a  matter  of  life  or 
death  to  Germany  to  advance  through  Belgium  and 
violate  the  latter’s  neutrality,  so  I  would  wish  him  to 
understand  that  it  was,  so  to  speak,  a  matter  of  life  or 
death  for  the  honor  of  Great  Britain  that  she  should  keep 
her  solemn  engagement  to  do  her  utmost  to  defend 
Belgium’s  neutrality  if  attacked.  A  solemn  compact 
simply  had  to  be  kept,  or  what  confidence  could  any  one 
have  in  England’s  engagement  in  the  future  ? 

There  is  one  nation,  however,  as  to  which 
there  is  no  room  for  difference  of  opinion,  whether 
we  consider  her  wrongs  or  the  justice  of  her 
actions.  It  seems  to  me  impossible  that  any 
man  can  fail  to  feel  the  deepest  sympathy  with  a 
nation  which  is  absolutely  guiltless  of  any  wrong¬ 
doing,  which  has  given  proof  of  high  valor,  and 
yet  which  has  suffered  terribly,  and  which,  if 
there  is  any  meaning  in  the  words  “right”  and 
“wrong,”  has  suffered  wrongfully.  Belgium  is 
not  in  the  smallest  degree  responsible  for  any  of 
the  conditions  that  during  the  last  half  century 
have  been  at  work  to  impress  a  certain  fatalistic 
stamp  upon  those  actions  of  Austria,  Russia, 
Germany,  and  France  which  have  rendered  this 
war  inevitable.  No  European  nation  has  had 
anything  whatever  to  fear  from  Belgium.  There 
was  not  the  smallest  danger  of  her  making  any 
aggressive  movement,  not  even  the  slightest  ag- 


20 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


gressive  movement,  against  any  one  of  her  neigh¬ 
bors.  Her  population  was  mainly  industrial  and 
was  absorbed  in  peaceful  business.  Her  people 
were  thrifty,  hard-working,  highly  civilized,  and 
in  no  way  aggressive.  She  owed  her  national 
existence  to  the  desire  to  create  an  absolutely 
neutral  state.  Her  neutrality  had  been  solemnly 
guaranteed  by  the  great  powers,  including  Ger¬ 
many  as  well  as  England  and  France. 

Suddenly,  and  out  of  a  clear  sky,  her  territory 
was  invaded  by  an  overwhelming  German  army. 
According  to  the  newspaper  reports,  it  was  ad¬ 
mitted  in  the  Reichstag  by  German  members 
that  this  act  was  “wrongful.”  Of  course,  if 
there  is  any  meaning  to  the  words  “right”  and 
“wrong”  in  international  matters,  the  act  was 
wrong.  The  men  who  shape  German  policy  take 
the  ground  that  in  matters  of  vital  national  mo¬ 
ment  there  are  no  such  things  as  abstract  right 
and  wrong,  and  that  when  a  great  nation  is 
struggling  for  its  existence  it  can  no  more  con¬ 
sider  the  rights  of  neutral  powers  than  it  can 
consider  the  rights  of  its  own  citizens  as  these 
rights  are  construed  in  times  of  peace,  and  that 
everything  must  bend  before  the  supreme  law  of 
national  self-preservation.  Whatever  we  may 
think  of  the  morality  of  this  plea,  it  is  certain 
that  almost  all  great  nations  have  in  time  past 
again  and  again  acted  in  accordance  with  it. 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


21 


England’s  conduct  toward  Denmark  in  the  Na¬ 
poleonic  wars,  and  the  conduct  of  both  England 
and  France  toward  us  during  those  same  wars, 
admit  only  of  this  species  of  justification;  and 
with  less  excuse  the  same  is  true  of  our  conduct 
toward  Spain  in  Florida  nearly  a  century  ago. 
Nevertheless  we  had  hoped  by  the  action  taken 
at  The  Hague  to  mark  an  advance  in  international 
morality  in  such  matters.  The  action  taken  by 
Germany  toward  Belgium,  and  the  failure  by 
the  United  States  in  any  way  to  protest  against 
such  action,  shows  that  there  has  been  no  advance. 
I  wish  to  point  out  just  what  was  done,  and  to 
emphasize  Belgium’s  absolute  innocence  and  the 
horrible  suffering  and  disaster  that  have  over¬ 
whelmed  her  in  spite  of  such  innocence.  And  I 
wish  to  do  this  so  that  we  as  a  nation  may  learn 
aright  the  lessons  taught  by  the  dreadful  Belgian 
tragedy. 

Germany’s  attack  on  Belgium  was  not  due  to 
any  sudden  impulse.  It  had  been  carefully 
planned  for  a  score  of  years,  on  the  assumption 
that  the  treaty  of  neutrality  was,  as  Herr  von  Beth- 
mann-Hollweg  observed,  nothing  but  “paper,” 
and  that  the  question  of  breaking  or  keeping  it 
was  to  be  considered  solely  from  the  standpoint 
of  Germany’s  interest.  The  German  railways  up 
to  the  Belgian  border  are  for  the  most  part  mili¬ 
tary  roads,  which  have  been  double-tracked  with 


22 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


a  view  to  precisely  the  overwhelming  attack  that 
has  just  been  delivered  into  and  through  Belgium. 
The  great  German  military  text-books,  such  as 
that  of  Bemhardi,  in  discussing  and  studying 
possible  German  campaigns  against  Russia  and 
France,  have  treated  advances  through  Belgium 
or  Switzerland  exactly  as  they  have  treated 
possible  advances  through  German  territory,  it 
being  assumed  by  the  writers  and  by  all  for  whom 
they  wrote  that  no  efficient  rulers  or  military 
men  would  for  a  second  consider  a  neutrality 
treaty  or  any  other  kind  of  treaty  if  it  became 
to  the  self-interest  of  a  party  to  break  it.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  German  system 
in  no  way  limits  its  disregard  of  conventions  to 
disregard  of  neutrality  treaties.  For  example,  in 
General  von  Bemhardi’s  book,  in  speaking  of 
naval  warfare,  he  lays  down  the  following  rule: 
“Sometimes  in  peace  even,  if  there  is  no  other 
means  of  defending  one’s  self  against  a  superior 
force,  it  will  be  advisable  to  attack  the  enemy  by 
torpedo  and  submarine  boats,  and  to  inflict  upon 
him  unexpected  losses.  .  .  .  War  upon  the  enemy’s 
trade  must  also  be  conducted  as  ruthlessly  as 
possible,  since  only  then,  in  addition  to  the  ma¬ 
terial  damage  inflicted  upon  the  enemy,  the 
necessary  terror  is  spread  among  the  merchant 
marine,  which  is  even  more  important  than  the 
capture  of  actual  prizes.  A  certain  amount  of 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY  23 

terrorism  must  be  practised  on  the  sea,  making 
peaceful  tradesmen  stay  in  safe  harbors.” 

Belgium  has  felt  the  full  effect  of  the  practical 
application  of  these  principles,  and  Germany  has 
profited  by  them  exactly  as  her  statesmen  and 
soldiers  believed  she  would  profit.  They  have 
believed  that  the  material  gain  of  trampling  on 
Belgium  would  more  than  offset  any  material  op¬ 
position  which  the  act  would  arouse,  and  they 
treat  with  the  utter  and  contemptuous  derision 
which  it  deserves  the  mere  pacificist  clamor 
against  wrong  which  is  unaccompanied  by  the 
intention  and  effort  to  redress  wrong  by  force. 

The  Belgians,  when  invaded,  valiantly  de¬ 
fended  themselves.  They  acted  precisely  as 
Andreas  Hofer  and  his  Tyrolese,  and  Koemer 
and  the  leaders  of  the  North  German  Tugendbund 
acted  in  their  day;  and  their  fate  has  been  the 
fate  of  Andreas  Hofer,  who  was  shot  after  his 
capture,  and  of  Koemer,  who  was  shot  in  battle. 
They  fought  valiantly,  and  they  were  overcome. 
They  were  then  stamped  under  foot.  Probably 
it  is  physically  impossible  for  our  people,  living 
softly  and  at  ease,  to  visualize  to  themselves  the 
dreadful  woe  that  has  come  upon  the  people  of 
Belgium,  and  especially  upon  the  poor  people. 
Let  each  man  think  of  his  neighbors — of  the  car¬ 
penter,  the  station  agent,  the  day-laborer,  the 
fanner,  the  grocer — who  are  round  about  him, 


24 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


and  think  of  these  men  deprived  of  their  all,  their 
homes  destroyed,  their  sons  dead  or  prisoners, 
their  wives  and  children  half  starved,  overcome 
with  fatigue  and  horror,  stumbling  their  way  to 
some  city  of  refuge,  and  when  they  have  reached 
it,  finding  air-ships  wrecking  the  houses  with 
bombs  and  destroying  women  and  children.  The 
King  shared  the  toil  and  danger  of  the  fighting 
men;  the  Oueen  and  her  children  suffered  as  other 

*  >v 

mothers  and  children  suffered. 

Unquestionably  what  has  been  done  in  Belgium 
has  been  done  in  accordance  with  what  the  Ger¬ 
mans  sincerely  believe  to  be  the  course  of  conduct 
necessitated  by  Germany’s  struggle  for  life. 
But  Germany’s  need  to  struggle  for  her  life  does 
not  make  it  any  easier  for  the  Belgians  to  suffer 
death.  The  Germans  are  in  Belgium  from  no 
fault  of  the  Belgians  but  purely  because  the  Ger¬ 
mans  deemed  it  to  their  vital  interest  to  violate 
Belgium’s  rights.  Therefore  the  ultimate  re¬ 
sponsibility  for  what  has  occurred  at  Louvain 
and  what  has  occurred  and  is  occurring  in  Brus¬ 
sels  rests  upon  Germany  and  in  no  way  upon 
Belgium.  The  invasion  could  have  been  averted 
by  no  action  of  Belgium  that  was  consistent  with 
her  honor  and  self-respect.  The  Belgians  would 
have  been  less  than  men  had  they  not  defended 
themselves  and  their  country.  For  this,  and  for 
this  only,  they  are  suffering,  somewhat  as  my 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY  25 

own  German  ancestors  suffered  when  Turenne 
ravaged  the  Palatinate,  somewhat  as  my  Irish 
ancestors  suffered  in  the  struggles  that  attended 
the  conquests  and  reconquests  of  Ireland  in  the 
days  of  Cromwell  and  William.  The  suffering  is 
by  no  means  as  great,  but  it  is  very  great,  and  it 
is  altogether  too  nearly  akin  to  what  occurred  in 
the  seventeenth  century  for  us  of  the  twentieth 
century  to  feel  overmuch  pleased  with  the  amount 
of  advance  that  has  been  made.  It  is  neither 
necessary  nor  at  the  present  time  possible  to  sift 
from  the  charges,  countercharges,  and  denials  the 
exact  facts  as  to  the  acts  alleged  to  have  been 
committed  in  various  places.  The  prime  fact  as 
regards  Belgium  is  that  Belgium  was  an  entirely 
peaceful  and  genuinely  neutral  power  which  had 
been  guilty  of  no  offence  whatever.  What  has 
befallen  her  is  due  to  the  further  fact  that  a  great, 
highly  civilized  military  power  deemed  that  its 
own  vital  interests  rendered  imperative  the  in¬ 
fliction  of  this  suffering  on  an  inoffensive  although 
valiant  and  patriotic  little  nation. 

I  admire  and  respect  the  German  people.  I 
am  proud  of  the  German  blood  in  my  veins.  But 
the  sympathy  and  support  of  the  American  people 
should  go  out  unreservedly  to  Belgium,  and  we 
should  learn  the  lesson  taught  by  Belgium’s  fall. 
What  has  occurred  to  Belgium  is  precisely  what 
would  occur  under  similar  conditions  to  us,  unless 


26 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


we  were  able  to  show  that  the  action  would  be 
dangerous. 

The  rights  and  wrongs  of  these  cases  where 
nations  violate  the  rules  of  morality  in  order  to 
meet  their  own  supposed  needs  can  be  precisely 
determined  only  when  all  the  facts  are  known  and 
when  men’s  blood  is  cool.  Nevertheless,  it  is  im¬ 
perative,  in  the  interest  of  civilization,  to  create 
international  conditions  which  shall  neither  re¬ 
quire  nor  permit  such  action  in  the  future.  More¬ 
over,  we  should  understand  clearly  just  what 
these  actions  are  and  just  what  lessons  we  of 
the  United  States  should  learn  from  them  so  far 
as  our  own  future  is  concerned. 

There  are  several  such  lessons.  One  is  how 
complicated  instead  of  how  simple  it  is  to  decide 
what  course  we  ought  to  follow  as  regards  any 
given  action  supposed  to  be  in  the  interest  of 
peace.  Of  course  I  am  speaking  of  the  thing 
and  not  the  name  when  I  speak  of  peace.  The 
ultrapacificists  are  capable  of  taking  any  posi¬ 
tion,  yet  I  suppose  that  few  among  them  now 
hold  that  there  was  value  in  the  “peace”  which 
was  obtained  by  the  concert  of  European  powers 
when  they  prevented  interference  with  Turkey 
while  the  Turks  butchered  some  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  Armenian  men,  women,  and  chil¬ 
dren.  In  the  same  way  I  do  not  suppose  that 
even  the  ultrapacificists  really  feel  that  “peace” 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


27 


is  triumphant  in  Belgium  at  the  present  moment. 
President  Wilson  has  been  much  applauded  by 
all  the  professional  pacificists  because  he  has  an¬ 
nounced  that  our  desire  for  peace  must  make  us 
secure  it  for  ourselves  by  a  neutrality  so  strict 
as  to  forbid  our  even  whispering  a  protest  against 
wrong-doing,  lest  such  whispers  might  cause  dis¬ 
turbance  to  our  ease  and  well-being.  We  pay 
the  penalty  of  this  action — or,  rather,  supine 
inaction — on  behalf  of  peace  for  ourselves,  by  for¬ 
feiting  our  right  to  do  anything  on  behalf  of  peace 
for  the  Belgians  in  the  present.  We  can  maintain 
our  neutrality  only  by  refusal  to  do  anything  to 
aid  unoffending  weak  powers  which  are  dragged 
into  the  gulf  of  bloodshed  and  misery  through  no 
fault  of  their  own.  It  is  a  grim  comment  on  the 
professional  pacificist  theories  as  hitherto  devel¬ 
oped  that,  according  to  their  view,  our  duty  to 
preserve  peace  for  ourselves  necessarily  means  the 
abandonment  of  all  effective  effort  to  secure  peace 
for  other  unoffending  nations  which  through  no 
fault  of  their  own  are  trampled  down  by  war. 

The  next  lesson  we  should  learn  is  of  far  more 
immediate  consequence  to  us  than  speculations 
about  peace  in  the  abstract.  Our  people  should 
wake  up  to  the  fact  that  it  is  a  poor  thing  to  live 
in  a  fool’s  paradise.  What  has  occurred  in  this 
war  ought  to  bring  home  to  everybody  what  has 
of  course  long  been  known  to  all  really  well- 


28 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


informed  men  who  were  willing  to  face  the  truth 
and  not  try  to  dodge  it.  Until  some  method  is 
devised  of  putting  effective  force  behind  arbi¬ 
tration  and  neutrality  treaties  neither  these 
treaties  nor  the  vague  and  elastic  body  of  custom 
which  is  misleadingly  termed  international  law 
will  have  any  real  effect  in  any  serious  crisis  be¬ 
tween  us  and  any  save  perhaps  one  or  two  of  the 
great  powers.  The  average  great  military  power 
looks  at  these  matters  purely  from  the  standpoint 
of  its  own  interests.  Several  months  ago,  for 
instance,  Japan  declared  war  on  Germany.  She 
has  paid  scrupulous  regard  to  our  own  rights 
and  feelings  in  the  matter.  The  contention  that 
she  is  acting  in  a  spirit  of  mere  disinterested 
altruism  need  not  be  considered.  She  believes 
that  she  has  wrongs  to  redress  and  strong  national 
interests  to  preserve.  Nineteen  years  ago  Ger¬ 
many  joined  with  Russia  to  check  Japan’s  progress 
after  her  victorious  war  with  China,  and  has 
since  then  itself  built  up  a  German  colonial  pos¬ 
session  on  Chinese  soil.  Doubtless  the  Japanese 
have  never  for  one  moment  forgotten  this  act  of 
Germany.  Doubtless  they  also  regard  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  a  strong  European  military  power  in 
China  so  near  to  Korea  and  Manchuria  as  a 
menace  to  Japan’s  national  life.  With  business¬ 
like  coolness  the  soldierly  statesmen  of  Nippon 
have  taken  the  chance  which  offered  itself  of  at 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


29 


little  cost  retaliating  for  the  injury  inflicted  upon 
them  in  the  past  and  removing  an  obstacle  to 
their  future  dominance  in  eastern  Asia.  Korea 
is  absolutely  Japan’s.  To  be  sure,  by  treaty  it 
was  solemnly  covenanted  that  Korea  should  re¬ 
main  independent.  But  Korea  was  itself  help¬ 
less  to  enforce  the  treaty,  and  it  was  out  of  the 
question  to  suppose  that  any  other  nation  with 
no  interest  of  its  own  at  stake  would  attempt  to 
do  for  the  Koreans  what  they  were  utterly  un¬ 
able  to  do  for  themselves.  Moreover,  the  treaty 
rested  on  the  false  assumption  that  Korea  could 
govern  herself  well.  It  had  already  been  shown 
that  she  could  not  in  any  real  sense  govern  her¬ 
self  at  all.  Japan  could  not  afford  to  see  Korea 
in  the  hands  of  a  great  foreign  power.  She  re¬ 
garded  her  duty  to  her  children  and  her  chil¬ 
dren’s  children  as  overriding  her  treaty  obliga¬ 
tions.  Therefore,  when  Japan  thought  the  right 
time  had  come,  it  calmly  tore  up  the  treaty  and 
took  Korea,  with  the  polite  and  businesslike 
efficiency  it  had  already  shown  in  dealing  with 
Russia,  and  was  afterward  to  show  in  dealing 
with  Germany.  The  treaty,  when  tested,  proved 
as  utterly  worthless  as  our  own  recent  all-inclusive 
arbitration  treaties — and  worthlessness  can  go  no 
further. 

Hysteria  does  not  tend  toward  edification;  and 
in  this  country  hysteria  is  unfortunately  too  often 


30 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


the  earmark  of  the  ultrapacificist.  Surely  at 
this  time  there  is  more  reason  than  ever  to  re¬ 
member  Professor  Lounsbury’s  remark  concern¬ 
ing  the  “infinite  capacity  of  the  human  brain  to 
withstand  the  introduction  of  knowledge.”  The 
comments  of  some  doubtless  well-meaning  citi¬ 
zens  of  our  own  country  upon  the  lessons  taught 
by  this  terrible  cataclysm  of  war  are  really  inex¬ 
plicable  to  any  man  who  forgets  the  truth  that 
Professor  Lounsbury  thus  set  forth.  A  writer  of 
articles  for  a  newspaper  syndicate  the  other  day 
stated  that  Germany  was  being  opposed  by  the 
rest  of  the  world  because  it  had  “inspired  fear.” 
This  thesis  can,  of  course,  be  sustained.  But 
Belgium  has  inspired  no  fear.  Yet  it  has  suffered 
infinitely  more  than  Germany.  Luxembourg  in¬ 
spired  no  fear.  Yet  it  has  been  quietly  taken 
possession  of  by  Germany.  The  writer  in  ques¬ 
tion  would  find  it  puzzling  to  point  out  the  par¬ 
ticulars  in  which  Belgium  and  Luxembourg — not 
to  speak  of  China  and  Korea — are  at  this  moment 
better  off  than  Germany.  Of  course  they  are 
worse  off ;  and  this  because  Germany  has  ‘  ‘  inspired 
fear,”  and  they  have  not.  Nevertheless,  this 
writer  drew  the  conclusion  that  “fear”  was  the 
only  emotion  which  ought  not  to  be  inspired ;  and 
he  advocated  our  abandonment  of  battle-ships  and 
other  means  of  defense,  so  that  we  might  never 
inspire  “fear”  in  any  one.  He  forgot  that,  while 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


3i 


it  is  a  bad  thing  to  inspire  fear,  it  is  a  much  worse 
thing  to  inspire  contempt.  Another  newspaper 
writer  pointed  out  that  on  the  frontier  between 
us  and  Canada  there  were  no  forts,  and  yet  peace 
obtained;  and  drew  the  conclusion  that  forts  and 
armed  forces  were  inimical  to  national  safety. 
This  worthy  soul  evidently  did  not  know  that 
Luxembourg  had  no  forts  or  armed  forces,  and 
therefore  succumbed  without  a  protest  of  any 
kind.  If  he  does  not  admire  the  heroism  of  the 
Belgians  and  prefer  it  to  the  tame  submission  of 
the  Luxembourgers,  then  this  writer  is  himself 
unfit  to  live  as  a  free  man  in  a  free  country.  The 
crown  of  ineptitude,  however,  was  reached  by  an 
editor  who  announced,  in  praising  the  recent  all- 
inclusive  peace  treaties,  that  “had  their  like  been 
in  existence  between  some  of  the  European  na¬ 
tions  two  weeks  ago,  the  world  might  have  been 
spared  the  great  war.”  It  is  rather  hard  to  deal 
seriously  with  such  a  supposition.  At  this  very 
moment  the  utter  worthlessness,  under  great  pres¬ 
sure,  of  even  the  rational  treaties  drawn  to  protect 
Belgium  and  Luxembourg  has  been  shown.  To 
suppose  that  under  such  conditions  a  bundle  of 
bits  of  paper  representing  mere  verbiage,  with  no 
guarantee,  would  count  for  anything  whatever  in 
a  serious  crisis  is  to  show  ourselves  unfit  to  control 
the  destinies  of  a  great,  just,  and  self-respecting 
people. 


32 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


These  writers  wish  us  to  abandon  all  means  of 
defending  ourselves.  Some  of  them  advocate  our 
abandoning  the  building  of  an  efficient  fleet. 
Yet  at  this  moment  Great  Britain  owes  it  that 
she  is  not  in  worse  plight  than  Belgium  solely  to 
the  fact  that  with  far-sighted  wisdom  her  states¬ 
men  have  maintained  her  navy  at  the  highest 
point  of  efficiency.  At  this  moment  the  Japanese 
are  at  war  with  the  Germans,  and  hostilities  have 
been  taking  place  in  what  but  twenty  years  ago 
was  Chinese  territory,  and  what  by  treaty  is 
unquestionably  Chinese  territory  to-day.  China 
has  protested  against  the  Japanese  violation  of 
Chinese  neutrality  in  their  operations  against  the 
Germans,  but  no  heed  has  been  paid  to  the  pro¬ 
test,  for  China  cannot  back  the  protest  by  the  use 
of  armed  force.  Moreover,  as  China  is  reported 
to  have  pointed  out  to  Germany,  the  latter  power 
had  violated  Chinese  neutrality  just  as  Japan  had 
done. 

Very  possibly  the  writers  above  alluded  to  were 
sincere  in  their  belief  that  they  were  advocating 
what  was  patriotic  and  wise  when  they  urged  that 
the  United  States  make  itself  utterly  defenseless 
so  as  to  avoid  giving  an  excuse  for  aggression. 
Yet  these  writers  ought  to  have  known  that  during 
their  own  lifetime  China  has  been  utterly  defense¬ 
less  and  yet  has  suffered  from  aggression  after 
aggression.  Large  portions  of  its  territory  are  now 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


33 


in  the  possession  of  Russia,  of  Japan,  of  Germany, 
of  France,  of  England.  The  great  war  between 
Russia  and  Japan  was  fought  on  what  was  nomi¬ 
nally  Chinese  territory.  At  present,  because  a  few 
months  ago  Servian  assassins  murdered  the  heir  to 
the  Austrian  monarchy,  Japan  has  fought  Germany 
on  Chinese  territory.  Luxembourg  has  been  ab¬ 
solutely  powerless  and  defenseless,  has  had  no 
soldiers  and  no  forts.  It  is  off  the  map  at  this 
moment.  Not  only  are  none  of  the  belligerents 
thinking  about  its  rights,  but  no  neutral  is  think¬ 
ing  about  its  rights,  and  this  simply  because 
Luxembourg  could  not  defend  itself.  It  is  our 
duty  to  be  patient  with  every  kind  of  folly,  but 
it  is  hard  for  a  good  American,  for  a  man  to  whom 
his  country  is  dear  and  who  reveres  the  memories 
of  Washington  and  Lincoln,  to  be  entirely  patient 
with  the  kind  of  folly  that  advocates  reducing 
this  country  to  the  position  of  China  and  Luxem¬ 
bourg. 

One  of  the  main  lessons  to  learn  from  this  war 
is  embodied  in  the  homely  proverb:  “Speak 
softly  and  carry  a  big  stick.”  Persistently  only 
half  of  this  proverb  has  been  quoted  in  deriding 
the  men  who  wish  to  safeguard  our  national  in¬ 
terest  and  honor.  Persistently  the  effort  has  been 
made  to  insist  that  those  who  advocate  keeping 
our  country  able  to  defend  its  rights  are  merely 
adopting  “the  policy  of  the  big  stick.”  In  reality, 


34 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


we  lay  equal  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  speak  softly;  in  other  words,  that  it  is 
necessary  to  be  respectful  toward  all  people  and 
scrupulously  to  refrain  from  wronging  them,  while 
at  the  same  time  keeping  ourselves  in  condition 
to  prevent  wrong  being  done  to  us.  If  a  nation 
does  not  in  this  sense  speak  softly,  then  sooner 
or  later  the  policy  of  the  big  stick  is  certain  to- 
result  in  war.  But  what  befell  Luxembourg  five 
months  ago,  what  has  befallen  China  again  and 
again  during  the  past  quarter  of  a  century,  shows 
that  no  amount  of  speaking  softly  will  save  any 
people  which  does  not  carry  a  big  stick. 

America  should  have  a  coherent  policy  of 
action  toward  foreign  powers,  and  this  should 
primarily  be  based  on  the  determination  never 
to  give  offense  when  it  can  be  avoided,  always 
to  treat  other  nations  justly  and  courteously,  and, 
as  long  as  present  conditions  exist,  to  be  prepared 
to  defend  our  own  rights  ourselves.  No  other 
nation  will  defend  them  for  us.  No  paper  guar¬ 
antee  or  treaty  will  be  worth  the  paper  on  which 
it  is  written  if  it  becomes  to  the  interest  of  some 
other  power  to  violate  it,  unless  we  have  strength, 
and  courage  and  ability  to  use  that  strength, 
back  of  the  treaty.  Every  public  man,  every 
writer  who  speaks  with  wanton  offensiveness  of  a 
foreign  power  or  of  a  foreign  people,  whether  he 
attacks  England  or  France  or  Germany,  whether 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


35 


he  assails  the  Russians  or  the  Japanese,  is  doing 
an  injury  to  the  whole  American  body  politic. 
We  have  plenty  of  shortcomings  at  home  to  cor¬ 
rect  before  we  start  out  to  criticise  the  shortcom¬ 
ings  of  others.  Now  and  then  it  becomes  impera¬ 
tively  necessary  in  the  interests  of  humanity,  or 
in  our  own  vital  interest,  to  act  in  a  manner 
which  will  cause  offense  to  some  other  power. 
This  is  a  lamentable  necessity;  but  when  the 
necessity  arises  we  must  meet  it  and  act  as  we 
are  honorably  bound  to  act,  no  matter  what  of¬ 
fense  is  given.  We  must  always  weigh  well  our 
duties  in  such  a  case,  and  consider  the  rights  of 
others  as  well  as  our  own  rights,  in  the  interest 
of  the  world  at  large.  If  after  such  consideration 
it  is  evident  that  we  are  bound  to  act  along  a 
certain  line  of  policy,  then  it  is  mere  weakness  to 
refrain  from  doing  so  because  offense  is  thereby 
given.  But  we  must  never  act  wantonly  or 
brutally,  or  without  regard  to  the  essentials  of 
genuine  morality — a  morality  considering  our  in¬ 
terests  as  well  as  the  interests  of  others,  and  con¬ 
sidering  the  interests  of  future  generations  as 
well  as  of  the  present  generation.  We  must  so 
conduct  ourselves  that  every  big  nation  and  every 
little  nation  that  behaves  itself  shall  never  have  to 
think  of  us  with  fear,  and  shall  have  confidence 
not  only  in  our  justice  but  in  our  courtesy.  Sub¬ 
mission  to  wrong-doing  on  our  part  would  be 


3$ 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


mere  weakness  and  would  invite  and  insure  dis¬ 
aster.  We  must  not  submit  to  wrong  done  to 
our  honor  or  to  our  vital  national  interests.  But 
we  must  be  scrupulously  careful  always  to  speak 
with  courtesy  and  self-restraint  to  others,  always 
to  act  decently  to  others,  and  to  give  no  nation 
any  justification  for  believing  that  it  has  anything 
to  fear  from  us  as  long  as  it  behaves  with  decency 
and  uprightness. 

Above  all,  let  us  avoid  the  policy  of  peace  with 
insult,  the  policy  of  unpreparedness  to  defend  our 
rights,  with  inability  to  restrain  our  representa¬ 
tives  from  doing  wrong  to  or  publicly  speaking  ill 
of  others.  The  worst  policy  for  the  United  States 
is  to  combine  the  unbridled  tongue  with  the  un¬ 
ready  hand. 

We  in  this  country  have  of  course  come  lamen¬ 
tably  short  of  our  ideals.  Nevertheless,  in  some 
ways  our  ideals  have  been  high,  and  at  times  we 
have  measurably  realized  them.  From  the  be¬ 
ginning  we  have  recognized  what  is  taught  in 
the  words  of  Washington,  and  again  in  the  great 
crisis  of  our  national  life  in  the  words  of  Lincoln, 
that  in  the  past  free  peoples  have  generally 
split  and  sunk  on  that  great  rock  of  difficulty 
caused  by  the  fact  that  a  government  which  rec¬ 
ognizes  the  liberties  of  the  people  is  not  usually 
strong  enough  to  preserve  the  liberties  of  the 
people  against  outside  aggression.  Washington 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


37 


and  Lincoln  believed  that  ours  was  a  strong  peo¬ 
ple  and  therefore  fit  for  a  strong  government. 
They  believed  that  it  was  only  weak  peoples  that 
had  to  fear  strong  governments,  and  that  to  us 
it  was  given  to  combine  freedom  and  efficiency. 
They  belonged  among  that  line  of  statesmen 
and  public  servants  whose  existence  has  been 
the  negation  of  the  theory  that  goodness  is  al¬ 
ways  associated  with  weakness,  and  that  strength 
always  finds  its  expression  in  violent  wrong-doing. 
Edward  the  Confessor  represented  exactly  the 
type  which  treats  weakness  and  virtue  as  inter¬ 
changeable  terms.  His  reign  was  the  prime  cause 
of  the  conquest  of  England.  Godoy,  the  Spanish 
statesman,  a  century  ago,  by  the  treaties  he 
entered  into  and  carried  out,  actually  earned  the 
title  of  “Prince  of  Peace”  instead  of  merely  lec¬ 
turing  about  it ;  and  the  result  of  his  peacefulness 
was  the  loss  by  Spain  of  the  vast  regions  which 
she  then  held  in  our  country  west  of  the  Missis¬ 
sippi,  and  finally  the  overthrow  of  the  Spanish 
national  government,  the  setting  up  in  Madrid 
of  a  foreign  king  by  a  foreign  conqueror,  and  a 
long-drawn  and  incredibly  destructive  war.  To 
statesmen  of  this  kind  Washington  and  Lincoln 
stand  in  as  sharp  contrast  as  they  stand  on  the 
other  side  to  the  great  absolutist  chiefs  such  as 
Caesar,  Napoleon,  Frederick  the  Great,  and  Crom¬ 
well.  .  What  was  true  of  the  personality  of  Wash- 


38 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


ington  and  Lincoln  was  true  of  the  policy  they 
sought  to  impress  upon  our  nation.  They  were 
just  as  hostile  to  the  theory  that  virtue  was  to 
be  confounded  with  weakness  as  to  the  theory 
that  strength  justified  wrong-doing.  No  abun¬ 
dance  of  the  milder  virtues  will  save  a  nation  that 
has  lost  the  virile  qualities;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  no  admiration  of  strength  must  make  us 
deviate  from  the  laws  of  righteousness.  The 
kind  of  ‘  ‘  peace  ’  ’  advocated  by  the  ultrapacificists 
of  1776  would  have  meant  that  we  never  would 
have  had  a  country;  the  kind  of  “peace”  ad¬ 
vocated  by  the  ultrapacificists  in  the  early  ’6o’s 
would  have  meant  the  absolute  destruction  of 
the  country.  It  would  have  been  criminal  weak¬ 
ness  for  Washington  not  to  have  fought  for  the 
independence  of  this  country,  and  for  Lincoln 
not  to  have  fought  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Union;  just  as  in  an  infinitely  smaller  degree  it 
would  have  been  criminal  weakness  for  us  if  we 
had  permitted  wrong-doing  in  Cuba  to  go  on  for¬ 
ever  unchecked,  or  if  we  had  failed  to  insist  on 
the  building  of  the  Panama  Canal  in  exactly  the 
fashion  that  we  did  insist;  and,  above  all,  if  we 
had  failed  to  build  up  our  navy  as  during  the  last 
twenty  years  it  has  been  built  up.  No  alliance, 
no  treaty,  and  no  easy  good-will  of  other  nations 
will  save  us  if  we  are  not  true  to  ourselves;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  if  we  wantonly  give  offense  to 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY  39 

others,  if  we  excite  hatred  and  fear,  then  some 
day  we  will  pay  a  heavy  penalty. 

The  most  important  lesson,  therefore,  for  us 
to  learn  from  Belgium’s  fate  is  that,  as  things  in 
the  world  now  are,  we  must  in  any  great  crisis 
trust  for  our  national  safety  to  our  ability  and 
willingness  to  defend  ourselves  by  our  own 
trained  strength  and  courage.  We  must  not 
wrong  others;  and  for  our  own  safety  we  must 
trust,  not  to  worthless  bits  of  paper  unbacked 
by  power,  and  to  treaties  that  are  fundamentally 
foolish,  but  to  our  own  manliness  and  clear-sighted 
willingness  to  face  facts. 

There  is,  however,  another  lesson  which  this 
huge  conflict  may  at  least  possibly  teach.  There 
is  at  least  a  chance  that  from  this  calamity  a 
movement  may  come  which  will  at  once  supple¬ 
ment  and  in  the  future  perhaps  altogether  sup¬ 
plant  the  need  of  the  kind  of  action  so  plainly  in¬ 
dicated  by  the  demands  of  the  present.  It  is  at 
least  possible  that  the  conflict  will  result  in  a 
growth  of  democracy  in  Europe,  in  at  least  a 
partial  substitution  of  the  rule  of  the  people  for 
the  rule  of  those  who  esteem  it  their  God-given 
right  to  govern  the  people.  This,  in  its  turn, 
would  render  it  probably  a  little  more  unlikely 
that  there  would  be  a  repetition  of  such  disastrous 
warfare.  I  do  not  think  that  at  present  it  would 
prevent  the  possibility  of  warfare.  I  think  that 


40 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


in  the  great  countries  engaged,  the  peoples  as  a 
whole  have  been  behind  their  sovereigns  on  both 
sides  of  this  contest.  Certainly  the  action  of  the 
Socialists  in  Germany,  France,  and  Belgium,  and, 
so  far  as  we  know,  of  the  popular  leaders  in  Russia, 
would  tend  to  bear  out  the  truth  of  this  state¬ 
ment.  But  the  growth  of  the  power  of  the  peo¬ 
ple,  while  it  would  not  prevent  war,  would  at 
least  render  it  more  possible  than  at  present  to 
make  appeals  which  might  result  in  some  cases  in 
coming  to  an  accommodation  based  upon  justice; 
for  justice  is  what  popular  rule  must  be  per¬ 
manently  based  upon  and  must  permanently  seek 
to  obtain  or  it  will  not  itself  be  permanent. 

Moreover,  the  horror  that  right-thinking  citi¬ 
zens  feel  over  the  awful  tragedies  of  this  war  can 
hardly  fail  to  make  sensible  men  take  an  interest 
in  genuine  peace  movements  and  try  to  shape 
them  so  that  they  shall  be  more  practical  than  at 
present.  I  most  earnestly  believe  in  every  rational 
movement  for  peace.  My  objection  is  only  to 
movements  that  do  not  in  very  fact  tell  in  favor 
of  peace  or  else  that  sacrifice  righteousness  to 
peace.  Of  course  this  includes  objection  to  all 
treaties  that  make  believe  to  do  what,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  they  fail  to  do.  Under  existing  con¬ 
ditions  universal  and  all-inclusive  arbitration 
treaties  have  been  utterly  worthless,  because 
where  there  is  no  power  to  compel  nations  to 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


4i 


arbitrate,  and  where  it  is  perfectly  certain  that 
some  nations  will  pay  no  respect  to  such  agree¬ 
ments  unless  they  can  be  forced  to  do  so,  it  is 
mere  folly  for  others  to  trust  to  promises  impossible 
of  performance;  and  it  is  an  act  of  positive  bad 
faith  to  make  these  promises  when  it  is  certain 
that  the  nation  making  them  would  violate  them. 
But  this  does  not  in  the  least  mean  that  we  must 
abandon  hope  of  taking  action  which  will  lessen 
the  chance  of  war  and  make  it  more  possible  to 
circumscribe  the  limits  of  war’s  devastation. 

For  this  result  we  must  largely  trust  to  sheer 
growth  in  morality  and  intelligence  among  the 
nations  themselves.  For  a  hundred  years  peace 
has  obtained  between  us  and  Great  Britain.  No 
frontier  in  Europe  is  as  long  as  the  frontier  be¬ 
tween  Canada  and  ourselves,  and  yet  there  is 
not  a  fort,  nor  an  armed  force  worthy  of  being 
called  such,  upon  it.  This  does  not  result  from 
any  arbitration  treaty  or  any  other  treaty.  Such 
treaties  as  those  now  existing  are  as  a  rule  ob¬ 
served  only  when  they  serve  to  make  a  record  of 
conditions  that  already  exist  and  which  they  do 
not  create.  The  fact  simply  is  that  there  has 
been  such  growth  of  good  feeling  and  intelli¬ 
gence  that  war  between  us  and  the  British  Em¬ 
pire  is  literally  an  impossibility,  and  there  is  no 
more  chance  of  military  movements  across  the 
Canadian  border  than  there  is  of  such  movement 


42 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


between  New  York  and  New  Hampshire  or  Que¬ 
bec  and  Ontario.  Slowly  but  surely,  I  believe, 
such  feelings  will  grow,  until  war  between  the 
Englishman  and  the  German,  or  the  Russian,  or 
the  Frenchman,  or  between  any  of  them  and 
the  American,  will  be  as  unthinkable  as  now  be¬ 
tween  the  Englishman  or  Canadian  and  the  Amer¬ 
ican. 

But  something  can  be  done  to  hasten  this  day 
by  wise  action.  It  may  not  be  possible  at  once  to 
have  this  action  as  drastic  as  would  be  ultimately 
necessary;  but  we  should  keep  our  purpose  in 
view.  The  utter  weakness  of  the  Hague  court, 
and  the  worthlessness  when  strain  is  put  upon 
them  of  most  treaties,  spring  from  the  fact  that  at 
present  there  is  no  means  of  enforcing  the  carry¬ 
ing  out  of  the  treaty  or  enforcing  the  decision  of 
the  court.  Under  such  circumstances  recommen¬ 
dations  for  universal  disarmament  stand  on  an 
intellectual  par  with  recommendations  to  establish 
“peace”  in  New  York  City  by  doing  away  with 
the  police.  Disarmament  of  the  free  and  liberty- 
loving  nations  would  merely  mean  insuring  the 
triumph  of  some  barbarism  or  despotism,  and  if 
logically  applied  would  mean  the  extinction  of 
liberty  and  of  all  that  makes  civilization  worth 
having  throughout  the  world.  But  in  view  of 
what  has  occurred  in  this  war,  surely  the  time 
ought  to  be  ripe  for  the  nations  to  consider  a 


THE  BELGIAN  TRAGEDY 


43 


great  world  agreement  among  all  the  civilized 
military  powers  to  back  righteousness  by  force. 
Such  an  agreement  would  establish  an  efficient 
world  league  for  the  peace  of  righteousness. 


\ 


CHAPTER  ill 


UNWISE  PEACE  TREATIES  A  MENACE 

TO  RIGHTEOUSNESS 

IN  studying  certain  lessons  which  should  be 
taught  the  United  States  by  this  terrible  world 
war,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  try  exactly 
to  assess  or  apportion  the  blame.  There  are  plenty 
of  previous  instances  of  violation  of  treaties  to  be 
credited  to  almost  all  the  nations  engaged  on  one 
side  or  the  other.  We  need  not  try  to  puzzle  out 
why  Italy  and  Japan  seemingly  construed  similar 
treaties  of  alliance  in  diametrically  opposite  ways ; 
nor  need  we  decide  which  was  justified  or  whether 
both  were  justified.  It  is  quite  immaterial  to  us, 
as  regards  certain  of  the  lessons  taught,  whether 
the  treaties  alleged  to  be  violated  affect  Luxem¬ 
bourg  on  the  one  hand  or  Bosnia  on  the  other, 
whether  it  is  the  neutrality  of  China  or  the  neu¬ 
trality  of  Belgium  that  is  violated. 

Yet  again,  we  need  always  to  keep  in  mind  that, 
although  it  is  culpable  to  break  a  treaty,  it  may 
be  even  worse  recklessly  to  make  a  treaty  which 
cannot  be  kept.  Recklessness  in  making  prom¬ 
ises  is  the  surest  way  in  which  to  secure  the  dis- 


UNWISE  PEACE  TREATIES  45 


credit  attaching  to  the  breaking  of  promises.  A 
treaty  at  present  usually  represents  merely  prom¬ 
ise,  not  performance;  and  it  is  wicked  to  promise 
what  will  not  or  cannot  be  performed.  Genuine 
good  can  even  now  be  accomplished  by  narrowly 
limited  and  defined  arbitration  treaties  which  are 
not  all-inclusive,  if  they  deal  with  subjects  on 
which  arbitration  can  be  accepted.  This  nation 
has  repeatedly  acted  in  obedience  to  such  treaties ; 
and  great  good  has  come  from  arbitrations  in  such 
cases  as,  for  example,  the  Dogger  Bank  incident, 
when  the  Russian  fleet  fired  on  British  trawlers 
during  the  Russo-Japanese  war.  But  no  good 
whatever  has  come  from  treaties  that  represented 
a  sham ;  and  under  existing  conditions  it  is  hypo¬ 
critical  for  a  nation  to  announce  that  it  will  arbi¬ 
trate  questions  of  honor  or  vital  interest,  and  folly 
to  think  that  opponents  will  abide  by  such  treaties. 
Bad  although  it  is  to  negotiate  such  a  treaty,  it 
would  be  worse  to  abide  by  it. 

Under  these  conditions  it  is  mischievous  to  a 
degree  for  a  nation  to  trust  to  any  treaty  of  the 
type  now  existing  to  protect  it  in  great  crises. 
Take  the  case  of  China  as  a  living  and  present- 
day  example.  China  has  shown  herself  utterly 
impotent  to  defend  her  neutrality.  Again  and 
again  she  made  this  evident  in  the  past.  Order 
was  not  well  kept  at  home  and  above  all  she  was 
powerless  to  defend  herself  from  outside  attack. 


46 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


She  has  not  prepared  for  war.  She  has  kept 
utterly  unprepared  for  war.  Yet  she  has  suffered 
more  from  war,  in  our  own  time,  than  any  mil¬ 
itary  power  in  the  world  during  the  same  period. 
She  has  fulfilled  exactly  the  conditions  advocated 
by  these  well-meaning  persons  who  for  the  last 
five  months  have  been  saying  in  speeches,  edito¬ 
rials,  articles  for  syndicates,  and  the  like  that  the 
United  States  ought  not  to  keep  up  battle-ships 
and  ought  not  to  trust  to  fortifications  nor  in 
any  way  to  be  ready  or  prepared  to  defend  her¬ 
self  against  hostile  attack,  but  should  endeavor 
to  secure  peace  by  being  so  inoffensive  and  help¬ 
less  as  not  to  arouse  fear  in  others.  The  well- 
meaning  people  who  write  these  editorials  and 
make  these  speeches  ought  to  understand  that 
though  it  is  a  bad  thing  for  a  nation  to  arouse  fear 
it  is  an  infinitely  worse  thing  to  excite  contempt; 
and  every  editor  or  writer  or  public  man  who 
tells  us  that  we  ought  not  to  have  battle-ships  and 
that  we  ought  to  trust  entirely  to  well-intentioned 
foolish  all-inclusive  arbitration  treaties  and  aban¬ 
don  fortifications  and  not  keep  prepared,  is  merely 
doing  his  best  to  bring  contempt  upon  the  United 
States  and  to  insure  disaster  in  the  future. 

Nor  is  China  the  only  case  in  point.  Luxem¬ 
bourg  is  a  case  in  point.  Korea  is  a  case  in  point. 
Korea  was  utterly  inoffensive  and  helpless.  It 
neither  took  nor  was  capable  of  taking  the  smallest 


UNWISE  PEACE  TREATIES 


47 


aggressive  action  against  any  one.  It  had  no 
forts,  no  war-ships,  no  army  worthy  of  the  name. 
It  excited  no  fear  and  no  anger.  But  it  did  excite 
measureless  contempt,  and  therefore  it  invited 
aggression. 

The  point  I  wish  to  make  is,  first,  the  extreme 
unwisdom  and  impropriety  of  making  promises 
that  cannot  be  kept,  and,  second,  the  utter  futility 
of  expecting  that  in  any  save  exceptional  cases 
a  strong  power  will  keep  a  promise  which  it  finds 

to  its  disadvantage,  unless  there  is  some  way  of 

?• 

putting  force  back  of  the  demand  that  the  treaty 
be  observed. 

America  has  no  claim  whatever  to  superior 
virtue  in  this  matter.  We  have  shown  an  appall¬ 
ing  recklessness  in  making  treaties,  especially  all- 
inclusive  arbitration  treaties  and  the  like,  which 
in  time  of  stress  would  not  and  could  not  be  ob¬ 
served.  When  such  a  treaty  is  not  observed  the 
blame  really  rests  upon  the  unwise  persons  who 
made  the  treaty.  Unfortunately,  however,  this 
apportionment  of  blame  cannot  be  made  by  out¬ 
siders.  All  they  can  say  is  that  the  country  con¬ 
cerned — and  I  speak  of  the  United  States — does  not 
keep  faith.  The  responsibility  for  breaking  an  im¬ 
proper  promise  really  rests  with  those  who  make 
it ;  but  the  penalty  is  paid  by  the  whole  country. 

There  are  certain  respects  in  which  I  think  the 
United  States  can  fairly  claim  to  stand  ahead  of 


48 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


most  nations  in  its  regard  for  international  mo¬ 
rality.  For  example,  last  spring  when  we  took 
Vera  Cruz,  there  were  individuals  within  the  city 
who  fired  at  our  troops  in  exactly  the  same  fash¬ 
ion  as  that  which  is  alleged  to  have  taken  place 
in  Louvain.  But  it  never  for  one  moment  en¬ 
tered  the  heads  of  our  people  to  destroy  Vera 
Cruz.  In  the  same  way,  when  we  promised  free¬ 
dom  to  Cuba,  we  kept  our  promise,  and  after 
establishing  an  orderly  government  in  Cuba  with¬ 
drew  our  army  and  left  her  as  an  independent 
power;  performing  an  act  which,  as  far  as  I  know, 
is  entirely  without  parallel  in  the  dealings  of 
stronger  with  weaker  nations. 

In  the  same  way  our  action  in  San  Domingo, 
when  we  took  and  administered  her  customs 
houses,  represented  a  substantial  and  efficient 
achievement  in  the  cause  of  international  peace 
which  stands  high  in  the  very  honorable  but 
scanty  list  of  such  actions  by  great  nations  in 
dealing  with  their  less  fortunate  sisters.  In  the 
same  way  our  handling  of  the  Panama  situation, 
both  in  the  acquisition  of  the  canal,  in  its  construc¬ 
tion,  and  in  the  attitude  we  have  taken  toward 
the  dwellers  on  the  Isthmus  and  all  the  nations  of 
mankind,  has  been  such  as  to  reflect  signal  honor 
on  our  people.  In  the  same  way  we  returned  the 
Chinese  indemnity,  because  we  deemed  it  exces¬ 
sive,  just  as  previously  we  had  returned  a  money 


UNWISE  PEACE  TREATIES 


49 


indemnity  to  Japan.  Similarly  the  disinterested¬ 
ness  with  which  we  have  administered  the  Philip¬ 
pines  for  the  good  of  the  Philippine  people  is 
something  upon  which  we  have  a  right  to  pride 
ourselves  and  shows  the  harm  that  would  have 
been  done  had  we  not  taken  possession  of  the 
Philippines. 

But,  unfortunately,  in  dealing  with  schemes  of 
universal  peace  and  arbitration,  we  have  often 
shown  an  unwillingness  to  fulfil  proper  promises 
which  we  had  already  made  by  treaty,  coupled 
with  a  reckless  willingness  to  make  new  treaties 
with  all  kinds  of  promises  which  were  either  im¬ 
proper  and  ought  not  to  be  kept  or  which,  even 
if  proper,  could  not  and  would  not  be  kept.  It 
has  again  and  again  proved  exceedingly  difficult 
to  get  Congress  to  appropriate  money  to  pay 
some  obligation  which  under  treaty  or  arbitra¬ 
tion  or  the  like  has  been  declared  to  be  owing  by 
us  to  the  citizens  of  some  foreign  nation.  Often 
we  have  announced  our  intention  to  make  sweep¬ 
ing  arbitration  treaties  or  agreements  at  the  very 
time  when  by  our  conduct  we  were  showing  that 
in  actual  fact  we  had  not  the  slightest  intention 
of  applying  them  with  the  sweeping  universality 
we  promised.  In  these  cases  we  were  usually, 
although  not  always,  right  in  our  refusal  to  apply 
the  treaties,  or  rather  the  principles  set  forth  in 
the  treaties,  to  the  concrete  case  at  issue;  but 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


SO 

we  were  utterly  wrong,  we  were,  even  although 
perhaps  unintentionally,  both  insincere  and  hypo¬ 
critical,  when  at  the  same  time  we  made  believe 
we  intended  that  these  principles  would  be  univer¬ 
sally  applied.  This  was  particularly  true  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  universal  arbitration  treaties 
which  our  government  unsuccessfully  endeavored 
to  negotiate  some  three  years  ago.  Our  govern¬ 
ment  announced  at  that  time  that  we  intended 
to  enter  into  universal  arbitration  treaties  under 
which  we  would  arbitrate  everything,  even  in¬ 
cluding  questions  of  honor  and  of  vital  national 
interest.  At  the  very  time  that  this  announcement 
was  made  and  the  negotiation  of  the  treaties  be¬ 
gun,  the  government  in  case  after  case  where 
specific  performance  of  its  pledges  was  demanded 
responded  with  a  flat  refusal  to  do  the  very  thing 
it  had  announced  its  intention  of  doing. 

Recently,  there  have  been  negotiated  in  Wash¬ 
ington  thirty  or  forty  little  all-inclusive  arbitra¬ 
tion  or  so-called  “peace”  treaties,  which  repre¬ 
sent  as  high  a  degree  of  fatuity  as  is  often  achieved 
in  these  matters.  There  is  no  likelihood  that 
they  will  do  us  any  great  material  harm  because 
it  is  absolutely  certain  that  we  would  not  pay  the 
smallest  attention  to  them  in  the  event  of  their 
being  invoked  in  any  matter  where  our  interests 
were  seriously  involved ;  but  it  would  do  us  moral 
harm  to  break  them,  even  although  this  were  the 


UNWISE  PEACE  TREATIES  51 


least  evil  of  two  evil  alternatives.  It  is  a  dis¬ 
creditable  thing  that  at  this  very  moment,  with 
before  our  eyes  such  proof  of  the  worthlessness  of 
the  neutrality  treaties  affecting  Belgium  and 
Luxembourg,  our  nation  should  be  negotiating 
treaties  which  convince  every  sensible  and  well- 
informed  observer  abroad  that  we  are  either 
utterly  heedless  in  making  promises  which  cannot 
be  kept  or  else  willing  to  make  promises  which  we 
have  no  intention  of  keeping.  What  has  just 
happened  shows  that  such  treaties  are  worthless 
except  to  the  degree  that  force  can  and  will  be 
used  in  backing  them. 

There  are  some  well-meaning  people,  misled  by 
mere  words,  who  doubtless  think  that  treaties  of 
this  kind  do  accomplish  something.  These  good 
and  well-meaning  people  may  feel  that  I  am  not 
zealous  in  the  cause  of  peace.  This  is  the  direct 
reverse  of  the  truth.  I  abhor  war.  In  common 
with  all  other  thinking  men  I  am  inexpressibly 
saddened  by  the  dreadful  contest  now  waging  in 
Europe.  I  put  peace  very  high  as  an  agent  for 
bringing  about  righteousness.  But  if  I  must 
choose  between  righteousness  and  peace  I  choose 
righteousness.  Therefore,  I  hold  myself  in  honor 
bound  to  do  anything  in  my  power  to  advance  the 
cause  of  the  peace  of  righteousness  throughout 
the  world.  I  believe  we  can  make  substantial 
advances  by  international  agreement  in  the  line 


52 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


of  achieving  this  purpose  and  in  this  book  I 
state  in  outline  just  what  I  think  can  be  done 
toward  this  end.  But  I  hold  that  we  will  do 
nothing  and  less  than  nothing  unless,  pending 
the  accomplishment  of  this  purpose,  we  keep  our 
own  beloved  country  in  such  shape  that  war  shall 
not  strike  her  down;  and,  furthermore,  unless  we 
also  seriously  consider  what  the  defects  have 
been  in  the  existing  peace,  neutrality,  and  arbi¬ 
tration  treaties  and  in  the  attitude  hitherto  as¬ 
sumed  by  the  professional  pacificists,  which  have 
rendered  these  treaties  such  feeble  aids  to  peace 
and  the  ultrapacificist  attitude  a  positive  obstacle 
to  peace. 

The  truth  is  that  the  advocates  of  world-wide 
peace,  like  all  reformers,  should  bear  in  mind 
Josh  Billings’s  astute  remark  that  “it  is  much 
easier  to  be  a  harmless  dove  than  a  wise  serpent.” 
The  worthy  pacificists  have  completely  forgotten 
that  the  Biblical  injunction  is  two-sided  and  that 
we  are  bidden  not  only  to  be  harmless  as  doves 
but  also  to  be  wise  as  serpents.  The  ultra¬ 
pacificists  have  undoubtedly  been  an  exceedingly 
harmless  body  so  far  as  obtaining  peace  is  con¬ 
cerned.  They  have  exerted  practically  no  in¬ 
fluence  in  restraining  wrong,  although  they  have 
sometimes  had  a  real  and  lamentable  influence  in 
crippling  the  forces  of  right  and  preventing  them 
from  dealing  with  wrong.  An  appreciable  amount 


UNWISE  PEACE  TREATIES  53 


of  good  work  has  been  done  for  peace  by  genuine 
lovers  of  peace,  but  it  has  not  been  done  by  the 
feeble  folk  of  the  peace  movement,  loquacious  but 
impotent,  who  are  usually  unfortunately  prom¬ 
inent  in  the  movement  and  who  excite  the  utter 
derision  of  the  great  powers  of  evil. 

Sincere  lovers  of  peace  who  are  wise  have  been 
obliged  to  face  the  fact  that  it  is  often  a  very  com¬ 
plicated  thing  to  secure  peace  without  the  sac¬ 
rifice  of  righteousness.  Furthermore,  they  have 
been  obliged  to  face  the  fact  that  generally  the 
only  way  to  accomplish  anything  was  by  not 
trying  to  accomplish  too  much. 

The  complicated  nature  of  the  problem  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  whereas  the  real  friends  of  right¬ 
eousness  believe  that  our  duty  to  peace  ought  to  be 
fulfilled  by  protesting  against — and  doubtless  if 
necessary  doing  more  than  merely  protest  against 
— the  violation  of  the  rights  secured  to  Belgium  by 
treaty,  the  professional  pacificists  nervously  point 
out  that  such  a  course  would  expose  us  to  accu¬ 
sations  of  abandoning  our  ‘  ‘  neutrality.  ’  ’  In  theory 
these  pacificists  admit  it  to  be  our  duty  to  uphold 
the  Hague  treaties  of  which  we  were  among  the 
signatory  powers;  but  they  are  against  effective 
action  to  uphold  them,  for  they  are  pathetic  be¬ 
lievers  in  the  all-sufficiency  of  signatures,  placed 
on  bits  of  paper.  They  have  pinned  their  faith 
to  the  foolish  belief  that  everything  put  in  these 


54 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


treaties  was  forthwith  guaranteed  to  all  mankind. 
In  dealing  with  the  rights  of  neutrals  Article  io  of 
Chapter  i  explicitly  states  that  if  the  territory 
of  a  neutral  nation  is  invaded  the  repelling  of 
such  invasion  by  force  shall  not  be  esteemed  a 
“hostile”  act  on  the  part  of  the  neutral  nation. 
Unquestionably  under  this  clause  Belgium  has 
committed  no  hostile  act.  Yet,  this  sound  dec¬ 
laration  of  morality,  in  a  treaty  that  the  leading 
world-powers  have  signed,  amounts  to  precisely 
and  exactly  nothing  so  far  as  the  rights  of  poor  Bel¬ 
gium  are  concerned,  because  there  is  no  way  pro¬ 
vided  of  enforcing  the  treaty  and  because  the 
American  government  has  decided  that  it  can 
keep  at  peace  and  remain  neutral  only  by  declin¬ 
ing  to  do  what,  according  to  the  intention  of  the 
Hague  treaty,  it  would  be  expected  to  do  in  secur¬ 
ing  peace  for  Belgium.  In  practice  the  Hague 
treaties  have  proved  and  will  always  prove  use¬ 
less  while  there  is  no  sanction  of  force  behind 
them.  For  the  United  States  to  proffer  “good 
offices  ’  ’  to  the  various  powers  entering  such  a  great 
conflict  as  the  present  one  accomplishes  not  one 
particle  of  good;  to  refer  them,  when  they  mutually 
complain  of  wrongs,  to  a  Hague  court  which  is 
merely  a  phantom  does  less  than  no  good.  The 
Hague  treaties  can  accomplish  nothing,  and  ought 
not  to  have  been  entered  into,  unless  in  such  a 
case  as  this  of  Belgium  there  is  willingness  to  take 


UNWISE  PEACE  TREATIES 


55 


efficient  action  under  them.  There  could  be  no 
better  illustration  of  how  extremely  complicated 
and  difficult  a  thing  it  is  in  practice  instead  of  in 
theory  to  make  even  a  small  advance  in  the  cause 
of  peace. 

I  believe  that  international  opinion  can  do 
something  to  arrest  wrong;  but  only  if  it  is 
aroused  and  finds  some  method  of  clear  and  force¬ 
ful  expression.  For  example,  I  hope  that  it  has 
been  aroused  to  the  point  of  preventing  any  repe¬ 
tition  at  the  expense  of  Brussels  of  the  destruc¬ 
tion  which  has  befallen  Louvain.  The  peaceful 
people  of  Brussels  now  live  in  dread  of  what  may 
happen  to  them  if  the  Germans  should  evacuate 
the  city.  In  such  an  event  it  is  possible  that  half 
a  dozen  fanatics,  or  half  a  dozen  young  roughs 
of  the  “Apache”  type,  in  spite  of  everything 
that  good  citizens  may  do,  will  from  some  build¬ 
ing  fire  on  the  retiring  soldiers.  In  such  case  the 
offenders  ought  to  be  and  must  be  treated  with 
instant  and  unsparing  rigor,  and  those  clearly 
guilty  of  aiding  or  shielding  them  should  also  be 
so  treated.  But  if  in  such  case  Brussels  is  in  whole 
or  in  part  destroyed  as  Louvain  was  destroyed, 
those  destroying  it  will  be  guilty  of  a  capital 
crime  against  civilization;  and  it  is  heartily  to 
be  regretted  that  civilized  nations  have  not  de¬ 
vised  some  method  by  which  the  collective  power 
of  civilization  can  be  used  to  prevent  or  punish 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


56 

such  crimes.  In  every  great  city  there  are  plenty 
of  reckless  or  fanatical  or  downright  evil  men 
eagerly  ready  to  do  some  act  which  is  abhorrent 
to  the  vast  majority  of  their  fellows;  and  it  is 
wicked  to  punish  with  cruel  severity  immense 
multitudes  of  innocent  men,  women,  and  children 
for  the  misdeeds  of  a  few  rascals  or  fanatics.  Of 
course,  it  is  eminently  right  to  punish  by  death 
these  rascals  or  fanatics  themselves. 

Kindly  people  who  know  little  of  life  and  noth¬ 
ing  whatever  of  the  great  forces  of  international 
rivalry  have  exposed  the  cause  of  peace  to  ridicule 
by  believing  that  serious  wars  could  be  avoided 
through  arbitration  treaties,  peace  treaties,  neu¬ 
trality  treaties,  and  the  action  of  the  Hague  court, 
without  putting  force  behind  such  treaties  and 
such  action.  The  simple  fact  is  that  none  of  these 
existing  treaties  and  no  function  of  the  Hague 
court  hitherto  planned  and  exercised  have  ex¬ 
erted  or  could  exert  the  very  smallest  influence  in 
maintaining  peace  when  great  conflicting  inter¬ 
national  passions  are  aroused  and  great  conflict¬ 
ing  national  interests  are  at  stake.  It  happens 
that  wars  have  been  more  numerous  in  the  fifteen 
years  since  the  first  Hague  conference  than  in  the 
fifteen  years  prior  to  it.  It  was  Russia  that 
called  the  first  and  second  Hague  conferences, 
and  in  the  interval  she  fought  the  war  with  Japan 
and  is  now  fighting  a  far  greater  war.  We  bore 


UNWISE  PEACE  TREATIES  57 


a  prominent  part  at  the  Hague  conferences;  but 
if  the  Hague  court  had  been  in  existence  in  1898 
it  could  not  have  had  the  smallest  effect  upon  our 
war  with  Spain;  and  neither  would  any  possible 
arbitration  treaty  or  peace  treaty  have  had  any 
effect.  At  the  present  moment  Great  Britain  owes 
its  immunity  from  invasion  purely  to  its  navy 
and  to  the  fact  that  that  navy  has  been  sedulously 
exercised  in  time  of  peace  so  as  to  prepare  it  for 
war.  Great  Britain  has  always  been  willing  to 
enter  into  any  reasonable — and  into  some  unrea¬ 
sonable — peace  and  arbitration  treaties;  but  her 
fate  now  would  have  been  the  fate  of  Belgium 
and  would  not  have  been  hindered  in  the  smallest 
degree  by  these  treaties,  if  she  had  not  possessed  a 
first-class  navy.  The  navy  has  done  a  thousand 
times  more  for  her  peace  than  all  the  arbitration 
treaties  and  peace  treaties  of  the  type  now  exist¬ 
ing  that  the  wit  of  man  could  invent.  I  believe 
that  national  agreement  in  the  future  can  do  much 
toward  minimizing  the  chance  for  war;  but  it 
must  be  by  proceeding  along  different  lines  from 
those  hitherto  followed  and  in  an  entirely  different 
spirit  from  the  ultrapacificist  or  professional  peace- 
at-any-price  spirit. 

The  Hague  court  has  served  a  very  limited, 
but  a  useful,  purpose.  Some,  although  only  a 
small  number,  of  the  existing  peace  and  arbitra¬ 
tion  treaties  have  served  a  useful  purpose.  But 


58 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


the  purpose  and  the  service  have  been  strictly 
limited.  Issues  often  arise  between  nations 
which  are  not  of  first-class  importance,  which  do 
not  affect  their  vital  honor  and  interest,  but 
which,  if  left  unsettled,  may  eventually  cause  irri¬ 
tation  that  will  have  the  worst  possible  results. 
The  Hague  court  and  the  different  treaties  in 
question  provide  instrumentalities  for  settling 
such  disputes,  where  the  nations  involved  really 
wish  to  settle  them  but  might  be  unable  to  do  so 
if  means  were  not  supplied.  This  is  a  real  service 
and  one  well  worth  rendering.  These  treaties 
and  the  Hague  court  have  rendered  such  service 
again  and  again  in  time  past.  It  has  been  a  mis¬ 
fortune  that  some  worthy  people  have  anticipated 
too  much  and  claimed  too  much  in  reference  to 
them,  for  the  failure  of  the  excessive  claims  has 
blinded  men  to  what  they  really  have  accom¬ 
plished.  To  expect  from  them  what  they  cannot 
give  is  merely  short-sighted.  To  assert  that  they 
will  give  what  they  cannot  give  is  mischievous. 
To  promise  that  they  will  give  what  they  cannot 
give  is  not  only  mischievous  but  hypocritical; 
and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  such  treaties  as 
the  thirty  or  forty  all-inclusive  arbitration  or  peace 
treaties  recently  negotiated  at  Washington,  al¬ 
though  unimportant,  are  slightly  harmful. 

The  Hague  court  has  proved  worthless  in  the 
present  gigantic  crisis.  There  is  hardly  a  Hague 


UNWISE  PEACE  TREATIES  59 


treaty  which  in  the  present  crisis  has  not  in  some 
respect  been  violated.  However,  a  step  toward 
the  peaceful  settlement  of  questions  at  issue  be¬ 
tween  nations  which  are  not  vital  and  which  do 
not  mark  a  serious  crisis  has  been  accomplished 
on  certain  occasions  in  the  past  by  the  action  of 
the  Hague  court  and  by  rational  and  limited 
peace  or  arbitration  treaties.  Our  business  is  to 
try  to  make  this  court  of  more  effect  and  to  en¬ 
large  the  class  of  cases  where  its  actions  will  be 
valuable.  In  order  to  do  this,  we  must  endeavor 
to  put  an  international  police  force  behind  this 
international  judiciary.  At  the  same  time  we 
must  refuse  to  do  or  say  anything  insincere. 
Above  all,  we  must  refuse  to  be  misled  into  aban¬ 
doning  the  policy  of  efficient  self-defense,  by  any 
unfounded  trust  that  the  Hague  court,  as  now 
constituted,  and  peace  or  arbitration  treaties  of 
the  existing  type,  can  in  the  smallest  degree  ac¬ 
complish  what  they  never  have  accomplished  and 
never  can  accomplish.  Neither  the  existing  Hague 
court  nor  any  peace  treaties  of  the  existing  type 
will  exert  even  the  slightest  influence  in  saving 
from  disaster  any  nation  that  does  not  preserve 
the  virile  virtues  and  the  long-sightedness  that 
will  enable  it  by  its  own  might  to  guard  its  own 
honor,  interest,  and  national  life. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  WAR 


FROM  what  we  have  so  far  considered,  two 
things  are  evident.  First,  it  is  quite  clear 
that  in  the  world,  as  it  is  at  this  moment 
situated,  it  is  literally  criminal,  literally  a  crime 
against  the  nation,  not  to  be  adequately  and 
thoroughly  prepared  in  advance,  so  as  to  guard 
ourselves  and  hold  our  own  in  war.  We  should 
have  a  much  better  army  than  at  present,  in¬ 
cluding  especially  a  far  larger  reserve  upon 
which  to  draw  in  time  of  war.  We  should  have 
first-class  fortifications,  especially  on  the  canal 
and  in  Hawaii.  Most  important  of  all,  we  should 
not  only  have  a  good  navy  but  should  have  it 
continually  exercised  in  manoeuvring.  For  nearly 
two  years  our  navy  has  totally  lacked  the  practice 
in  manoeuvring  in  fleet  formation  indispensable  to 
its  efficiency. 

Of  all  the  lessons  hitherto  taught  by  the  war, 
the  most  essential  for  us  to  take  to  heart  is  that 
taught  by  the  catastrophe  that  has  befallen  Bel¬ 
gium.  One  side  of  this  catastrophe,  one  lesson 
taught  by  Belgium’s  case,  is  the  immense  gain  in 

60 


THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  WAR  61 


the  self-respect  of  a  people  that  has  dared  to  fight 
heroically  in  the  face  of  certain  disaster  and  pos¬ 
sible  defeat.  Every  Belgian  throughout  the 
world  carries  his  head  higher  now  than  he  has 
ever  carried  it  before,  because  of  the  proof  of 
virile  strength  that  his  people  have  given.  In 
the  world  at  large  there  is  not  the  slightest  interest 
concerning  Luxembourg’s  ultimate  fate;  there  is 
nothing  more  than  amusement  as  to  the  discus¬ 
sion  whether  Japan  or  Germany  is  most  to  blame 
in  connection  with  the  infringement  of  Chinese 
neutrality.  This  is  because  neither  China  nor 
Luxembourg  has  been  able  and  willing  effectively 
to  stand  for  her  own  rights.  At  this  moment 
Luxembourg  is  enjoying  “peace” — the  peace  of 
death.  But  Belgium  has  stood  for  her  own  rights. 
She  has  shown  heroism,  courage,  and  self-sacrifice, 
and,  great  though  the  penalty,  the  ultimate  re¬ 
ward  will  be  greater  still. 

If  ever  this  country  is  attacked  and  drawn  into 
war  as  Belgium,  through  no  fault  of  her  own,  was 
drawn  into  war,  I  hope  most  earnestly  that  she 
will  emulate  Belgium’s  courage;  and  this  she  can¬ 
not  do  unless  she  is  prepared  in  advance  as  Bel¬ 
gium  was  prepared.  In  one  point,  as  I  have 
already  stated,  I  very  earnestly  hope  that  she  will 
go  beyond  Belgium.  If  any  great  city,  such  as 
New  York  or  San  Francisco,  Boston  or  Seattle,  is 
held  for  ransom  by  a  foreign  foe,  I  earnestly  hope 


62 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


that  Americans,  within  the  city  and  without,  will 
insist  that  not  one  dollar  of  ransom  shall  be  paid, 
and  will  gladly  acquiesce  in  the  absolute  destruc¬ 
tion  of  the  city,  by  fire  or  in  any  other  manner, 
rather  than  see  a  dollar  paid  into  the  war  chest 
of  our  foes  for  the  further  prosecution  of  the  war 
against  us.  Napoleon  the  Great  made  many 
regions  pay  for  their  own  conquest  and  the  con¬ 
quest  of  the  nations  to  which  they  belonged. 
But  Spain  and  Russia  would  not  pay,  and  the 
burning  of  Moscow  and  the  defense  of  Saragossa 
marked  the  two  great  stages  in  the  turn  of  the 
tide  against  him.  The  prime  lesson  of  this  war 
is  that  no  nation  can  preserve  its  own  self-respect, 
or  the  good-will  of  other  nations,  unless  it  keeps 
itself  ready  to  exact  justice  from  others,  precisely 
as  it  should  keep  itself  eager  and  willing  to  do 
justice  to  others. 

The  second  lesson  is  the  utter  inadequacy  in 
times  of  great  crises  of  existing  peace  and  neu¬ 
trality  treaties,  and  of  all  treaties  conceived  in 
the  spirit  of  the  all-inclusive  arbitration  treaties 
recently  adopted  at  Washington;  and,  in  fact,  of 
all  treaties  which  do  not  put  potential  force  be¬ 
hind  the  treaty,  which  do  not  create  some  kind  of 
international  police  power  to  stand  behind  inter¬ 
national  sense  of  right  as  expressed  in  some  com¬ 
petent  tribunal. 

It  remains  to  consider  whether  there  is  not — 


THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  WAR  63 


and  I  believe  there  is — some  method  which  will 
bring  nearer  the  day  when  international  war  of 
the  kind  hitherto  waged  and  now  waging  between 
nations  shall  be  relegated  to  that  past  which  con¬ 
tains  the  kind  of  private  war  that  was  habitually 
Waged  between  individuals  up  to  the  end  of  the 
Middle  Ages.  By  degrees  the  work  of  a  national 
police  has  been  substituted  for  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  private  war.  The  growth  of  sentiment 
in  favor  of  peace  within  each  nation  accomplished 
little  until  an  effective  police  force  was  put  back 
of  the  sentiment.  There  are  a  few  communities 
where  such  a  police  force  is  almost  non-existent, 
although  always  latent  in  the  shape  of  a  sheriff’s 
posse  or  something  of  the  kind.  In  all  big  com¬ 
munities,  however,  in  all  big  cities,  law  is  observed, 
innocent  and  law-abiding  and  peaceful  people  are 
protected  and  the  disorderly  and  violent  classes 
prevented  from  a  riot  of  mischief  and  wrong-do¬ 
ing  only  by  the  presence  of  an  efficient  police 
force.  Some  analogous  international  police  force 
must  be  created  if  war  between  nations  is  to  be 
minimized  as  war  between  individuals  has  been 
minimized. 

It  is,  of  course,  essential  that,  if  this  end  is  to 
be  accomplished,  we  shall  face  facts  with  the 
understanding  of  what  they  really  signify.  Not 
the  slightest  good  is  done  by  hysterical  outcries 
for  a  peace  which  would  consecrate  wrong  or 


64 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


leave  wrongs  unredressed.  Little  or  nothing 
would  be  gained  by  a  peace  which  merely  stopped 
this  war  for  the  moment  and  left  untouched  all 
the  causes  that  have  brought  it  about.  A  peace 
which  left  the  wrongs  of  Belgium  unredressed, 
which  did  not  leave  her  independent  and  secured 
against  further  wrong-doing,  and  which  did  not 
provide  measures  hereafter  to  safeguard  all  peace¬ 
ful  nations  against  suffering  the  fate  that  Belgium 
has  suffered,  would  be  mischievous  rather  than 
beneficial  in  its  ultimate  effects.  If  the  United 
States  had  any  part  in  bringing  about  such  a 
peace  it  would  be  deeply  to  our  discredit  as  a 
nation.  Belgium  has  been  terribly  wronged,  and 
the  civilized  world  owes  it  to  itself  to  see  that  this 
wrong  is  redressed  and  that  steps  are  taken  which 
will  guarantee  that  hereafter  conditions  shall  not 
be  permitted  to  become  such  as  either  to  require  or 
to  permit  such  action  as  that  of  Germany  against 
Belgium.  Surely  all  good  and  honest  men  who 
are  lovers  of  peace  and  who  do  not  use  the  great 
words  “love  of  peace”  to  cloak  their  own  folly 
and  timidity  must  agree  that  peace  is  to  be  made 
the  handmaiden  of  righteousness  or  else  that  it  is 
worthless. 

England’s  attitude  in  going  to  war  in  defense 
of  Belgium’s  rights,  according  to  its  guarantee, 
was  not  only  strictly  proper  but  represents  the 
only  kind  of  action  that  ever  will  make  a  neu- 


THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  WAR  65 

trality  treaty  or  peace  treaty  or  arbitration  treaty 
worth  the  paper  on  which  it  is  written.  The  pub¬ 
lished  despatches  of  the  British  government  show 
that  Sir  Edward  Grey  clearly,  emphatically,  and 
scrupulously  declined  to  commit  his  government 
to  war  until  it  became  imperative  to  do  so  if  Great 
Britain  was  to  fulfil,  as  her  honor  and  interest 
alike  demanded,  her  engagements  on  behalf  of  the 
neutrality  of  Belgium.  Of  course,  as  far  as  Great 
Britain  is  concerned,  she  would  not  be  honorably 
justified  in  making  peace  unless  this  object  of  her 
going  to  war  was  achieved.  Our  hearty  sympathy 
should  go  out  to  her  in  this  attitude. 

The  case  of  Belgium  in  this  war  stands  by  it¬ 
self.  As  regards  all  the  other  powers,  it  is  not 
only  possible  to  make  out  a  real  case  in  favor  of 
every  nation  on  each  side,  but  it  is  also  quite  pos¬ 
sible  to  show  that,  under  existing  conditions,  each 
nation  was  driven  by  its  vital  interests  to  do  what 
it  did.  The  real  nature  of  the  problem  we  have 
ahead  of  us  can  only  be  grasped  if  this  attitude  of 
the  several  powers  is  thoroughly  understood.  To 
paint  the  Kaiser  as  a  devil,  merely  bent  on  grat¬ 
ifying  a  wicked  thirst  for  bloodshed,  is  an  absurd¬ 
ity,  and  worse  than  an  absurdity.  I  believe  that 
history  will  declare  that  the  Kaiser  acted  in  con¬ 
formity  with  the  feelings  of  the  German  people 
and  as  he  sincerely  believed  the  interests  of  his 
people  demanded;  and,  as  so  often  before  in  his 


66 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


personal  and  family  life,  he  and  his  family  have 
given  honorable  proof  that  they  possess  the  qual¬ 
ities  that  are  characteristic  of  the  German  people. 
Every  one  of  his  sons  went  to  the  war,  not  nom¬ 
inally,  but  to  face  every  danger  and  hardship. 
Two  of  his  sons  hastily  married  the  girls  to  whom 
they  were  betrothed  and  immediately  afterward 
left  for  the  front. 

This  was  a  fresh  illustration  of  one  of  the  most 
striking  features  of  the  outbreak  of  the  war  in 
Germany.  In  tens  of  thousands  of  cases  the 
officers  and  enlisted  men,  who  were  engaged,  mar¬ 
ried  immediately  before  starting  for  the  front. 
In  many  of  the  churches  there  were  long  queues 
of  brides  waiting  for  the  ceremony,  so  as  to  enable 
their  lovers  to  marry  them  just  before  they  re¬ 
sponded  to  the  order  that  meant  that  they  might 
have  to  sacrifice  everything,  including  life,  for 
the  nation.  A  nation  that  show's  such  a  spirit  is 
assuredly  a  great  nation.  The  efficiency  of  the 
German  organization,  the  results  of  the  German 
preparation  in  advance,  were  strikingly  shown  in 
the  powerful  forward  movement  of  the  first  six 
weeks  of  the  wrar  and  in  the  steady  endurance 
and  resolute  resourcefulness  displayed  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  months. 

Not  only  is  the  German  organization,  the  Ger¬ 
man  preparedness,  highly  creditable  to  Germany, 
but  even  more  creditable  is  the  spirit  lying  behind 


THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  WAR  67 


the  organization.  The  men  and  women  of  Ger¬ 
many,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  have  shown 
a  splendid  patriotism  and  abnegation  of  self.  In 
reading  of  their  attitude,  it  is  impossible  not  to 
feel  a  thrill  of  admiration  for  the  stem  courage 
and  lofty  disinterestedness  which  this  great  crisis 
laid  bare  in  the  souls  of  the  people.  I  most  ear¬ 
nestly  hope  that  we  Americans,  if  ever  the  need 
may  arise,  will  show  similar  qualities. 

It  is  idle  to  say  that  this  is  not  a  people’s  war. 
The  intensity  of  conviction  in  the  righteousness 
of  their  several  causes  shown  by  the  several  peo¬ 
ples  is  a  prime  factor  for  consideration,  if  we  are 
to  take  efficient  means  to  try  to  prevent  a  repeti¬ 
tion  of  this  incredible  world  tragedy.  History 
may  decide  in  any  war  that  one  or  the  other  party 
was  wrong,  and  yet  also  decide  that  the  highest 
qualities  and  powers  of  the  human  soul  were 
shown  by  that  party.  We  here  in  the  United 
States  have  now  grown  practically  to  accept  this 
view  as  regards  our  own  Civil  War,  and  we  feel 
an  equal  pride  in  the  high  devotion  to  the  right, 
as  it  was  given  each  man  to  see  the  right,  shown 
alike  by  the  men  who  wore  the  blue  and  the  men 
who  wore  the  gray. 

The  English  feel  that  in  this  war  they  fight  not 
only  for  themselves  but  for  principle,  for  justice, 
for  civilization,  for  a  real  and  lasting  world  peace. 
Great  Britain  is  backed  by  the  great  free  democ- 


68 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


racies  that  under  her  flag  have  grown  up  in  Can¬ 
ada,  in  Australia,  in  South  Africa.  She  feels  that 
she  stands  for  the  liberties  and  rights  of  weak 
nations  everywhere.  One  of  the  most  striking 
features  of  the  war  is  the  way  in  which  the  varied 
peoples  of  India  have  sprung  to  arms  to  defend 
the  British  Empire. 

The  Russians  regard  the  welfare  of  their  whole 
people  as  at  stake.  The  Russian  Liberals  believe 
that  success  for  Russia  means  an  end  of  militarism 
in  Europe.  They  believe  that  the  Pole,  the  Jew, 
the  Finn,  the  man  of  the  Caucasus  will  each  and 
all  be  enfranchised,  that  the  advance  of  justice 
and  right  in  Russia  will  be  immeasurably  furthered 
by  the  triumph  of  the  Russian  people  in  this  con¬ 
test,  and  that  the  conflict  was  essential,  not  only 
to  Russian  national  life  but  to  the  growth  of  free¬ 
dom  and  justice  within  her  boundaries. 

The  oeople  of  Germany  believe  that  they  are 
enga^cu  primarily  in  a  fight  for  life  of  the  Teuton 
against  the  Slav,  of  civilization  against  what  they 
regard  as  a  vast  menacing  flood  of  barbarism. 
They  went  to  war  because  they  believed  the  war 
was  an  absolute  necessity,  not  merely  to  German 
well-being  but  to  German  national  existence. 
They  sincerely  feel  that  the  nations  of  western 
Europe  are  traitors  to  the  cause  of  Occidental  civ¬ 
ilization,  and  that  they  themselves  are  fighting, 
each  man  for  his  own  hearthstone,  for  his  own  wife 


THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  WAR  69 


and  children,  and  all  for  the  future  existence  of 
the  generations  yet  to  come. 

The  French  feel  with  passionate  conviction  that 
this  is  the  last  stand  of  France,  and  that  if  she  does 
not  now  succeed  and  is  again  trampled  under  foot, 
her  people  will  lose  for  all  time  their  place  in  the 
forefront  of  that  great  modem  civilization  of 
which  the  debt  to  France  is  literally  incalculable. 
It  would  be  impossible  too  highly  to  admire  the 
way  in  which  the  men  and  women  of  France 
have  borne  themselves  in  this  nerve-shattering 
time  of  awful  struggle  and  awful  suspense.  They 
have  risen  level  to  the  hour’s  need,  whereas  in 
1870  they  failed  so  to  rise.  The  high  valor  of  the 
French  soldiers  has  been  matched  by  the  poise, 
the  self-restraint,  the  dignity  and  the  resolution 
with  which  the  French  people  and  the  French 
government  have  behaved. 

Of  Austria  and  Hungary,  of  Servia  and  Monte¬ 
negro,  exactly  the  same  is  true,  and  the  people  of 
each  of  these  countries  have  shown  the  sternest 
and  most  heroic  courage  and  the  loftiest  and  most 
patriotic  willingness  for  self-sacrifice. 

To  each  of  these  peoples  the  war  seems  a  cru¬ 
sade  against  threatening  wrong,  and  each  man 
fervently  believes  in  the  justice  of  his  cause. 
Moreover,  each  combatant  fights  with  that  terri¬ 
ble  determination  to  destroy  the  opponent  which 
springs  from  fear.  It  is  not  the  fear  which  any 


70 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


one  of  these  powers  has  inspired  that  offers  the 
difficult  problem.  It  is  the  fear  which  each  of 
them  genuinely  feels.  Russia  believes  that  a 
quarter  of  the  Slav  people  will  be  trodden  under 
the  heel  of  the  Germans,  unless  she  succeeds. 
France  and  England  believe  that  their  very  exis¬ 
tence  depends  on  the  destruction  of  the  German 
menace.  Germany  believes  that  unless  she  can  so 
cripple,  and,  if  possible,  destroy  her  western  foes, 
as  to  make  them  harmless  in  the  future,  she  will 
be  unable  hereafter  to  protect  herself  against  the 
mighty  Slav  people  on  her  eastern  boundary  and 
will  be  reduced  to  a  condition  of  international  im¬ 
potence.  Some  of  her  leaders  are  doubtless  in¬ 
fluenced  by  worse  motives ;  but  the  motives  above 
given  are,  I  believe,  those  that  influence  the  great 
mass  of  Germans,  and  these  are  in  their  essence 
merely  the  motives  of  patriotism,  of  devotion  to 
one’s  people  and  one’s  native  land. 

We  nations  who  are  outside  ought  to  recognize 
both  the  reality  of  this  fear  felt  by  each  nation  for 
others,  together  with  the  real  justification  for  its 
existence.  Yet  we  cannot  sympathize  with  that 
fear-bom  anger  which  would  vent  itself  in  the 
annihilation  of  the  conquered.  The  right  attitude 
is  to  limit  militarism,  to  destroy  the  menace  of 
militarism,  but  to  preserve  the  national  integrity 
of  each  nation.  The  contestants  are  the  great 
civilized  peoples  of  Europe  and  Asia. 


THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  WAR  7* 


Japan’s  part  in  the  war  has  been  slight.  She  has 
borne  herself  with  scrupulous  regard  not  only  to 
the  rights  but  to  the  feelings  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States.  Japan’s  progress  should  be  wel¬ 
comed  by  every  enlightened  friend  of  humanity 
because  of  the  promise  it  contains  for  the  regen¬ 
eration  of  Asia.  All  that  is  necessary  in  order  to 
remove  every  particle  of  apprehension  caused  by 
this  progress  is  to  do  what  ought  to  be  done  in 
reference  to  her  no  less  than  in  reference  to  Euro¬ 
pean  and  American  powers,  namely,  to  develop 
a  world  policy  which  shall  guarantee  each  nation 
against  any  menace  that  might  otherwise  be  held 
for  it  in  the  growth  and  progress  of  another  nation. 

The  destruction  of  Russia  is  not  thinkable,  but 
if  it  were,  it  would  be  a  most  frightful  calamity. 
The  Slavs  are  a  young  people,  of  limitless  possi¬ 
bilities,  who  from  various  causes  have  not  been 
able  to  develop  as  rapidly  as  the  peoples  of  central 
and  western  Europe.  They  have  grown  in  civili¬ 
zation  until  their  further  advance  has  become 
something  greatly  to  be  desired,  because  it  will  be 
a  factor  of  immense  importance  in  the  welfare  of 
the  world.  All  that  is  necessary  is  for  Russia  to 
throw  aside  the  spirit  of  absolutism  developed  in 
her  during  the  centuries  of  Mongol  dominion. 
She  will  then  be  found  doing  what  no  other  ract? 
can  do  and  what  it  is  of  peculiar  advantage  to  the 
English-speaking  peoples  that  she  should  do. 


72 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


As  for  crushing  Germany  or  crippling  her  and 
reducing  her  to  political  impotence,  such  an  action 
would  be  a  disaster  to  mankind.  The  Germans 
are  not  merely  brothers;  they  are  largely  our¬ 
selves.  The  debt  we  owe  to  German  blood  is 
great;  the  debt  we  owe  to  German  thought  and  to 
German  example,  not  only  in  governmental  ad¬ 
ministration  but  in  all  the  practical  work  of  life, 
is  even  greater.  Every  generous  heart  and  every 
far-seeing  mind  throughout  the  world  should  re¬ 
joice  in  the  existence  of  a  stable,  united,  and  pow¬ 
erful  Germany,  too  strong  to  fear  aggression  and 
too  just  to  be  a  source  of  fear  to  its  neighbors. 

As  for  France,  she  has  occupied,  in  the  modem 
world,  a  position  as  unique  as  Greece  in  the  world 
of  antiquity.  To  have  her  broken  or  cowed 
would  mean  a  loss  to-day  as  great  as  the  loss  that 
was  suffered  by  the  world  when  the  creative 
genius  of  the  Greek  passed  away  with  his  loss 
of  political  power  and  material  greatness.  The 
world  cannot  spare  France. 

Now,  the  danger  to  each  of  these  great  and  splen¬ 
did  civilizations  arises  far  more  from  the  fear  that 
each  feels  than  from  the  fear  that  each  inspires. 
Belgium’s  case  stands  apart.  She  inspired  no 
fear.  No  peace  should  be  made  until  her  wrongs 
have  been  redressed,  and  the  likelihood  of  the 
repetition  of  such  wrongs  provided  against.  She 
has  suffered  incredibly  because  the  fear  among  the 


THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  WAR  73 


plain  German  people,  among  the  Socialists,  for  in¬ 
stance,  of  the  combined  strength  of  France  and 
Russia  made  them  acquiesce  in  and  support  the 
policy  of  the  military  party,  which  was  to  disre¬ 
gard  the  laws  of  international  morality  and  the 
plain  and  simple  rights  of  the  Belgian  people. 

It  is  idle  merely  to  make  speeches  and  write 
essays  against  this  fear,  because  at  present  the 
fear  has  a  real  basis.  At  present  each  nation  has 
cause  for  the  fear  it  feels.  Each  nation  has  cause 
to  believe  that  its  national  life  is  in  peril  unless 
it  is  able  to  take  the  national  life  of  one  or  more 
of  its  foes  or  at  least  hopelessly  to  cripple  that  foe. 
The  causes  of  the  fear  must  be  removed  or,  no 
matter  what  peace  may  be  patched  up  to-day  or 
what  new  treaties  may  be  negotiated  to-morrow, 
these  causes  will  at  some  future  day  bring  about 
the  same  results,  bring  about  a  repetition  of  this 
same  awful  tragedy. 


CHAPTER  V 


HOW  TO  STRIVE  FOR  WORLD  PEACE 

IN  the  preceding  chapters  I  have  endeavored 
to  set  forth,  in  a  spirit  of  absolute  fairness 
and  calmness,  the  lessons  as  I  see  them  that 
this  war  teaches  all  the  world  and  especially  the 
United  States.  I  believe  I  have  shown  that, 
while,  at  least  as  against  Belgium,  there  has  been 
actual  wrong-doing,  yet  on  the  whole  and  looking 
back  at  the  real  and  ultimate  causes  rather  than 
at  the  temporary  occasions  of  the  war,  what  has 
occurred  is  due  primarily  to  the  intense  fear  felt 
by  each  nation  for  other  nations  and  to  the  anger 
bom  of  that  fear.  Doubtless  in  certain  elements, 
notably  certain  militaristic  elements,  of  the  popu¬ 
lation  other  motives  have  been  at  work;  but  I 
believe  that  the  people  of  each  country,  in  backing 
the  government  of  that  country,  in  the  present  war 
have  been  influenced  mainly  by  a  genuine  patri¬ 
otism  and  a  genuine  fear  of  what  might  happen 
to  their  beloved  land  in  the  event  of  aggression 
by  other  nations. 

Under  such  conditions,  as  I  have  shown,  our 
duty  is  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  events  have 

74 


WORLD  PEACE 


75 


clearly  demonstrated  that  in  any  serious  crisis 
treaties  unbacked  by  force  are  not  worth  the 
paper  upon  which  they  are  written.  Events  have 
clearly  shown  that  it  is  the  idlest  of  folly  to  assert 
and  little  short  of  treason  against  the  nation  for 
statesmen  who  should  know  better  to  pretend, 
that  the  salvation  of  any  nation  under  existing 
world  conditions  can  be  trusted  to  treaties,  to 
little  bits  of  paper  with  names  signed  on  them  but 
without  any  efficient  force  behind  them.  The 
United  States  will  be  guilty  of  criminal  miscon¬ 
duct,  we  of  this  generation  will  show  ourselves 
traitors  to  our  children  and  our  children’s  chil- 
den  if,  as  conditions  are  now,  we  do  not  keep  our¬ 
selves  ready  to  defend  our  hearths,  trusting  in 
great  crises  not  to  treaties,  not  to  the  ineffective 
good-will  of  outsiders,  but  to  our  own  stout  hearts 
and  strong  hands. 

So  much  for  the  first  and  most  vital  lesson. 
But  we  are  not  to  be  excused  if  we  stop  here.  We 
must  endeavor  earnestly  but  with  sanity  to  try 
to  bring  around  better  world  conditions.  We  must 
try  to  shape  our  policy  in  conjunction  with  other 
nations  so  as  to  bring  nearer  the  day  when  the 
peace  of  righteousness,  the  peace  of  justice  and 
fair  dealing,  will  be  established  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth.  With  this  object  in  view,  it  is  our 
duty  carefully  to  weigh  the  influences  which  are 
at  work  or  may  be  put  to  work  in  order  to  bring 


76 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


about  this  result  and  in  every  effective  way  to  do 
our  best  to  further  the  growth  of  these  influences. 
When  this  has  been  done  no  American  adminis¬ 
tration  will  be  able  to  assert  that  it  is  reduced 
to  humiliating  impotence  even  to  protest  against 
such  wrong  as  that  committed  on  Belgium,  be¬ 
cause,  forsooth,  our  “neutrality”  can  only  be  pre¬ 
served  by  failure  to  help  right  what  is  wrong — 
and  we  shall  then  as  a  people  have  too  much  self- 
respect  to  enter  into  absurd,  all-inclusive  arbitra¬ 
tion  treaties,  unbacked  by  force,  at  the  very  mo¬ 
ment  when  we  fail  to  do  what  is  clearly  demanded 
by  our  duty  under  the  Hague  treaties. 

Doubtless  in  the  long  run  most  is  to  be  hoped 
from  the  slow  growth  of  a  better  feeling,  a  more 
real  feeling  of  brotherhood  among  the  nations, 
among  the  peoples.  The  experience  of  the  United 
States  shows  that  there  is  no  real  foundation  in 
race  for  the  bitter  antagonism  felt  among  Slavs 
and  Germans,  French  and  English.  There  are  in 
this  country  hundreds  of  thousands,  millions,  of 
men  who  by  birth  and  parentage  are  of  German 
descent,  of  French  descent  or  Slavonic  descent, 
or  descended  from  each  of  the  peoples  within  the 
British  Islands.  These  different  races  not  only 
get  along  well  together  here,  but  become  knit 
into  one  people,  and  after  a  few  generations  their 
blood  is  mingled.  In  my  own  veins  runs  not  only 
the  blood  of  ancestors  from  the  various  peoples 


WORLD  PEACE 


77 


of  the  British  Islands,  English,  Scotch,  Welsh, 
and  Irish,  but  also  the  blood  of  Frenchman  and 
of  German — not  to  speak  of  my  forefathers  from 
Holland.  It  is  idle  to  tell  us  that  the  French¬ 
man  and  the  German,  the  Slav  and  the  English¬ 
man  are  irreconcilably  hostile  one  to  the  other 
because  of  difference  of  race.  From  our  own 
daily  experiences  we  know  the  contrary.  We 
know  that  good  men  and  bad  men  are  to  be  found 
in  each  race.  We  know  that  the  differences  be¬ 
tween  the  races  above  named  and  many  others 
are  infinitesimal  compared  with  the  vital  points 
of  likeness. 

But  this  growth  is  too  slow  by  itself  adequately 
to  meet  present  needs.  At  present  we  are  con¬ 
fronted  with  the  fact  that  each  nation  must  keep 
armed  and  must  be  ready  to  go  to  war  because 
there  is  a  real  and  desperate  need  to  do  so  and 
because  the  penalty  for  failure  may  be  to  suffer 
a  fate  like  that  of  China.  At  present  in  every 
great  crisis  treaties  have  shown  themselves  not 
worth  the  paper  they  are  written  on,  and  the 
multitude  of  peace  congresses  that  have  been  held 
have  failed  to  secure  even  the  slightest  tangible 
result,  as  regards  any  contest  in  which  the  pas¬ 
sions  of  great  nations  were  fully  aroused  and  their 
vital  interests  really  concerned.  In  other  words, 
each  nation  at  present  in  any  crisis  of  fundamental 
importance  has  to  rely  purely  on  its  own  power, 


78 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


its  own  strength,  its  own  individual  force.  The 
futility  of  international  agreements  in  great  cri¬ 
ses  has  come  from  the  fact  that  force  was  not 
back  of  them. 

What  is  needed  in  international  matters  is  to 
create  a  judge  and  then  to  put  police  power  back 
of  the  judge. 

So  far  the  time  has  not  been  ripe  to  attempt 
this.  Surely  now,  in  view  of  the  awful  cataclysm 
of  the  present  war,  such  a  plan  could  at  least  be 
considered;  and  it  may  be  that  the  combatants 
at  the  end  will  be  willing  to  try  it  in  order  to  se¬ 
cure  at  least  a  chance  for  the  only  kind  of  peace 
that  is  worth  having,  the  peace  that  is  compat¬ 
ible  with  self-respect.  Merely  to  bring  about  a 
peace  at  the  present  moment,  without  providing 
for  the  elimination  of  the  causes  of  war,  would 
accomplish  nothing  of  any  permanent  value,  and 
the  attempt  to  make  it  would  probably  represent 
nothing  else  than  the  adroit  use  of  some  more  or 
less  foolish  or  more  or  less  self-interested  out¬ 
sider  by  some  astute  power  which  wished  to  see 
if  it  could  not  put  its  opponents  in  the  wrong. 

If  the  powers  were  justified  in  going  into  this 
war  by  their  vital  interests,  then  they  are  re¬ 
quired  to  continue  the  war  until  these  vital  in¬ 
terests  are  no  longer  in  jeopardy.  A  peace  which 
left  without  redress  wrongs  like  those  which  Bel¬ 
gium  has  suffered  or  which  in  effect  consecrated 


WORLD  PEACE 


79 


the  partial  or  entire  destruction  of  one  or  more 
nations  and  the  survival  in  aggravated  form  of 
militarism  and  autocracy,  and  of  international 
hatred  in  its  most  intense  and  virulent  form, 
would  really  be  only  a  worthless  truce  and  would 
not  represent  the  slightest  advance  in  the  cause 
of  righteousness  and  of  international  morality. 

The  essential  thing  to  do  is  to  free  each  nation 
from  the  besetting  fear  of  its  neighbor.  This 
can  only  be  done  by  removing  the  causes  of  such 
fear.  The  neighbor  must  no  longer  be  a  danger. 

Mere  disarmament  will  not  accomplish  this 
result,  and  the  disarmament  of  the  free  and  en¬ 
lightened  peoples,  so  long  as  a  single  despotism 
or  barbarism  were  left  armed,  wrould  be  a  hideous 
calamity.  If  armaments  were  reduced  while 
causes  of  trouble  were  in  no  way  removed,  wars 
would  probably  become  somewhat  more  frequent 
just  because  they  would  be  less  expensive  and  less 
decisive.  It  is  greatly  to  be  desired  that  the 
growth  of  armaments  should  be  arrested,  but  they 
cannot  be  arrested  while  present  conditions  con¬ 
tinue.  Mere  treaties,  mere  bits  of  papers,  with 
names  signed  to  them  and  with  no  force  back  of 
them,  have  proved  utterly  worthless  for  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  nations,  and  where  they  are  the  only 
alternatives  it  is  not  only  right  but  necessary 
that  each  nation  should  arm  itself  so  as  to  be 
able  to  cope  with  any  possible  foe. 


8o 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


The  one  permanent  move  for  obtaining  peace, 
which  has  yet  been  suggested,  with  any  reason¬ 
able  chance  of  attaining  its  object,  is  by  an  agree¬ 
ment  among  the  great  powers,  in  which  each 
should  pledge  itself  not  only  to  abide  by  the  de¬ 
cisions  of  a  common  tribunal  but  to  back  with 
force  the  decisions  of  that  common  tribunal. 
The  great  civilized  nations  of  the  world  which  do 
possess  force,  actual  or  immediately  potential, 
should  combine  by  solemn  agreement  in  a  great 
World  League  for  the  Peace  of  Righteousness. 
In  a  later  chapter  I  shall  briefly  outline  what 
such  an  agreement  should  attempt  to  perform. 
At  present  it  is  enough  to  say  that  such  a  world- 
agreement  offers  the  only  alternative  to  each  na¬ 
tion’s  relying  purely  on  its  own  armed  strength; 
for  a  treaty  unbacked  by  force  is  in  no  proper 
sense  of  the  word  an  alternative. 

Of  course,  if  there  were  not  reasonable  good 
faith  among  the  nations  making  such  an  agree¬ 
ment,  it  would  fail.  But  it  would  not  fail  merely 
because  one  nation  did  not  observe  good  faith. 
It  would  be  impossible  to  say  that  such  an  agree¬ 
ment  would  at  once  and  permanently  bring  uni¬ 
versal  peace.  But  it  would  certainly  mark  an 
immense  advance.  It  would  certainly  mean  that 
the  chances  of  war  were  minimized  and  the  pros¬ 
pects  of  limiting  and  confining  and  regulating  war 
immensely  increased.  At  present  force,  as  repre- 


WORLD  PEACE 


81 


sented  by  the  armed  strength  of  the  nations,  is 
wholly  divorced  from  such  instrumentalities  for 
securing  peace  as  international  agreements  and 
treaties.  In  consequence,  the  latter  are  practi¬ 
cally  impotent  in  great  crises.  There  is  no  con¬ 
nection  between  force,  on  the  one  hand,  and  any 
scheme  for  securing  international  peace  or  justice 
on  the  other.  Under  these  conditions  every  wise 
and  upright  nation  must  continue  to  rely  for  its 
own  peace  and  well-being  on  its  own  force,  its 
own  strength.  As  all  students  of  the  law  know,  a 
right  without  a  remedy  is  in  no  real  sense  of  the 
word  a  right  at  all.  In  international  matters  the 
declaration  of  a  right,  or  the  announcement  of  a 
worthy  purpose,  is  not  only  aimless,  but  is  a  just 
cause  for  derision  and  may  even  be  mischievous, 
if  force  is  not  put  behind  the  right  or  the  purpose. 
Our  business  is  to  make  force  the  agent  of  justice, 
the  instrument  of  right  in  international  matters 
as  it  has  been  made  in  municipal  matters,  in 
matters  within  each  nation. 

One  good  purpose  which  would  be  served  by  the 
kind  of  international  action  I  advocate  is  that  of 
authoritatively  deciding  when  treaties  terminate 
or  lapse.  At  present  every  treaty  ought  to  con¬ 
tain  provision  for  its  abrogation;  and  at  present 
the  wrong  done  in  disregarding  a  treaty  may  be 
one  primarily  of  time  and  manner.  Unquestion¬ 
ably  it  may  become  an  imperative  duty  to  abro- 


82 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


gate  a  treaty.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  set  forth  this  right  and  duty  in  convincing 
manner  when  discussing  our  treaty  with  France 
during  the  administration  of  John  Adams,  and 
again  a  century  later  when  discussing  the  Chinese 
treaty.  The  difficulty  at  present  is  that  each 
case  must  be  treated  on  its  own  merits;  for  in 
some  cases  it  may  be  right  and  necessary  for  a 
nation  to  abrogate  or  denounce  (not  to  violate) 
a  treaty;  and  yet  in  other  cases  such  abrogation 
may  represent  wrong-doing  which  should  be  sup¬ 
pressed  by  the  armed  strength  of  civilization. 
At  present  in  cases  where  only  two  nations  are 
concerned  there  is  no  substitute  for  such  abroga¬ 
tion  or  violation  of  the  treaty  by  one  of  them; 
for  each  of  the  two  has  to  be  judge  in  its  own  case. 
But  the  tribunal  of  a  world  league  would  offer 
the  proper  place  to  which  to  apply  for  the  abroga¬ 
tion  of  treaties;  and,  with  international  force 
back  of  such  a  tribunal,  the  infraction  of  a  treaty 
could  be  punished  in  whatever  way  the  necessi¬ 
ties  of  the  case  demanded. 

Such  a  scheme  as  the  one  hereinafter  briefly  out¬ 
lined  will  not  bring  perfect  justice  any  more  than 
under  municipal  law  we  obtain  perfect  justice;  but 
it  will  mark  an  immeasurable  advance  on  anything 
now  existing;  for  it  will  mean  that  at  last  a  long 
stride  has  been  taken  in  the  effort  to  put  the  col¬ 
lective  strength  of  civilized  mankind  behind  the 


WORLD  PEACE 


83 

collective  purpose  of  mankind  to  secure  the  peace 
of  righteousness,  the  peace  of  justice  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth. 

It  may  be,  though  I  sincerely  hope  to  the  con¬ 
trary,  that  such  a  scheme  is  for  the  immediate 
future  Utopian — it  certainly  will  not  be  Utopian 
for  the  remote  future.  If  it  is  impossible  in  the 
immediate  future  to  devise  some  working  scheme 
by  which  force  shall  be  put  behind  righteousness 
in  disinterested  and  effective  fashion,  where  inter¬ 
national  wrongs  are  concerned,  then  the  only 
alternative  will  be  for  each  free  people  to  keep  it¬ 
self  in  shape  with  its  own  strength  to  defend  its 
own  rights  and  interests,  and  meanwhile  to  do  all 
that  can  be  done  to  help  forward  the  slow  growth 
of  sentiment  which  is  assuredly,  although  very 
gradually,  telling  against  international  wrong¬ 
doing  and  violence. 

Man,  in  recognizedly  human  shape,  has  been 
for  ages  on  this  planet,  and  the  extraordinary  dis¬ 
coveries  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia  now  enable 
us  to  see  in  dim  fashion  the  beginning  of  historic 
times  six  or  seven  thousand  years  ago.  In  the 
earlier  ages  of  which  history  speaks  there  was  prac¬ 
tically  no  such  thing  as  an  international  con¬ 
science.  The  armies  of  Babylon  and  Assyria, 
Egypt  and  Persia  felt  no  sense  of  obligation  to 
outsiders  and  conquered  merely  because  they 
wished  to  conquer.  In  Greece  a  very  imperfect 


8a 

9 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


recognition  of  international  right  grew  up  so  far 
as  Greek  communities  were  concerned,  but  it 
never  extended  to  barbarians.  In  the  Roman 
Empire  this  feeling  grew  slightly,  if  only  for  the 
reason  that  so  many  nations  were  included  within 
its  bounds  and  were  forced  to  live  peaceably  to¬ 
gether.  In  the  Middle  Ages  the  common  Chris¬ 
tianity  of  Europe  created  a  real  bond.  There 
was  at  least  a  great  deal  of  talk  about  the  duties 
of  Christian  nations  to  one  another;  and  although 
the  action  along  the  lines  of  the  talk  was  lamen¬ 
tably  insufficient,  still  the  talk  itself  represented 
the  dawning  recognition  of  the  fact  that  each  na¬ 
tion  might  owe  something  to  other  nations  and 
that  it  was  not  right  to  base  action  purely  on  self- 
interest. 

There  has  undoubtedly  been  a  wide  expansion 
of  this  feeling  during  the  last  few  centuries,  and 
particularly  during  the  last  century.  It  now  ex¬ 
tends  so  as  to  include  not  only  Christian  nations 
but  also  those  non-Christian  nations  which  them¬ 
selves  treat  with  justice  and  fairness  the  men  of 
different  creed.  We  are  still  a  lamentably  long 
distance  away  from  the  goal  toward  which  we  are 
striving;  but  we  have  taken  a  few  steps  toward 
that  goal.  A  hundred  years  ago  the  English- 
speaking  peoples  of  Britain  and  America  regarded 
one  another  as  inveterate  and  predestined  enemies, 
just  as  three  centuries  previously  had  been  the 


WORLD  PEACE 


85 


case  in  Great  Britain  itself  between  those  who 
dwelt  in  the  northern  half  and  those  who  dwelt 
in  the  southern  half  of  the  island.  Now  war  is 
unthinkable  between  us.  Moreover,  there  is  a 
real  advance  in  good-will,  respect,  and  under¬ 
standing  between  the  United  States  and  all  the 
other  nations  of  the  earth.  The  advance  is  not 
steady  and  it  is  interrupted  at  times  by  acts  of 
unwisdom,  which  are  quite  as  apt  to  be  committed 
by  ourselves  as  by  other  peoples ;  but  the  advance 
has  gone  on.  There  is  far  greater  sentiment  than 
ever  before  against  unwarranted  aggressions  by 
stronger  powers  against  weak  powers;  there  is 
far  greater  feeling  against  misconduct,  whether  in 
small  or  big  powers ;  and  far  greater  feeling  against 
brutality  in  war. 

This  does  not  mean  that  the  wrong-doing  as 
regards  any  one  of  these  matters  has  as  yet  been 
even  approximately  stopped  or  that  the  indigna¬ 
tion  against  such  wrong-doing  is  as  yet  anything 
like  as  effective  as  it  should  be.  But  we  must 
not  let  our  horror  at  the  wrong  that  is  still  done 
blind  us  to  the  fact  that  there  has  been  improve¬ 
ment.  As  late  as  the  eighteenth  century  there 
were  continual  instances  where  small  nations  or 
provinces  were  overrun,  just  as  Belgium  has  been 
overrun,  without  any  feeling  worth  taking  into 
account  being  thereby  excited  in  the  rest  of  man¬ 
kind.  In  the  seventeenth  century  affairs  were 


86 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


worse.  What  has  been  done  in  Belgian  cities 
has  been  very  dreadful  and  the  Belgian  country¬ 
side  has  suffered  in  a  way  to  wring  our  hearts; 
but  our  sympathy  and  indignation  must  not  blind 
us  to  the  fact  that  even  in  this  case  there  has 
been  a  real  advance  during  the  last  three  hundred 
years  and  that  such  things  as  were  done  to  Mag¬ 
deburg  and  Wexford  and  Drogheda  and  the  en¬ 
tire  Palatinate  in  the  seventeenth  century  are  no 
longer  possible. 

There  is  every  reason  to  feel  dissatisfied  with 
the  slow  progress  that  has  been  made  in  putting 
a  stop  to  wrong-doing;  it  is  our  bounden  duty 
now  to  act  so  as  to  secure  redress  for  wrong¬ 
doing;  but  nevertheless  we  must  also  recognize 
the  fact  that  some  progress  has  been  made,  and 
that  there  is  now  a  good  deal  of  real  sentiment, 
and  some  efficient  sentiment,  against  international 
wrong-doing.  There  has  been  a  real  growth  toward 
international  peace,  justice,  and  fair  dealing.  We 
have  still  a  long  way  to  go  before  reaching  the 
goal,  but  at  least  we  have  gone  forward  a  little 
way  toward  the  goal.  This  growth  will  continue. 
We  must  do  everything  that  we  can  to  make  it 
continue.  But  we  must  not  blind  ourselves  to 
the  fact  that  as  yet  this  growth  is  not  such  as  in 
any  shape  or  way  to  warrant  us  in  relying  for 
our  ultimate  safety  in  great  national  crises  upon 
anything  except  the  strong  fibre  of  our  national 


WORLD  PEACE 


87 


character,  and  upon  such  preparation  in  advance 
as  will  give  that  character  adequate  instruments 
wherewith  to  make  proof  of  its  strength. 


t 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  PEACE  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS 


“  Come,  Peace !  not  like  a  mourner  bowed 
For  honor  lost  and  dear  ones  wasted, 

But  proud,  to  meet  a  people  proud, 

With  eyes  that  tell  o’  triumph  tasted ! 

Come,  with  han’  gripping  on  the  hilt, 

An’  step  that  proves  ye  Victory’s  daughter ! 

Longin’  for  you,  our  sperits  wilt 

Like  shipwrecked  men’s  on  raf’s  for  water. 

“Come,  while  our  country  feels  the  lift 

Of  a  great  instinct  shouting  *  Forwards !’ 

An’  knows  that  freedom  ain’t  a  gift 
Thet  tarries  long  in  han’s  of  cowards ! 

Come,  sech  ez  mothers  prayed  for,  when 
They  kissed  their  cross  with  lips  that  quivered, 

An’  bring  fair  wages  for  brave  men, 

A  nation  saved,  a  race  delivered !” 

THESE  are  the  noble  lines  of  a  noble  poet, 
written  in  the  sternest  days  of  the  great 
Civil  War,  when  the  writer,  Lowell,  was 
one  among  the  millions  of  men  who  mourned  the 
death  in  battle  of  kinsfolk  dear  to  him.  No  man 
ever  lived  who  hated  an  unjust  war  more  than 
Lowell  or  who  loved  with  more  passionate  fervor 
the  peace  of  righteousness.  Yet,  like  the  other 
great  poets  of  his  day  and  country,  like  Holmes, 

8S 


THE  PEACE  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS  89 


who  sent  his  own  son  to  the  war,  like  gentle  Long¬ 
fellow  and  the  Quaker  Whittier,  he  abhorred  un¬ 
righteousness  and  ignoble  peace  more  than  war. 
These  men  had  lofty  souls.  They  possessed  the 
fighting  edge,  without  which  no  man  is  really 
great;  for  in  the  really  great  man  there  must  be 
both  the  heart  of  gold  and  the  temper  of  steel. 

In  1864  there  were  in  the  North  some  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  men  who  praised  peace  as  the 
supreme  end,  as  a  good  more  important  than  all 
other  goods,  and  who  denounced  war  as  the  worst 
of  all  evils.  These  men  one  and  all  assailed  and 
denounced  Abraham  Lincoln,  and  all  voted 
against  him  for  President.  Moreover,  at  that 
time  there  were  many  individuals  in  England  and 
France  who  said  it  was  the  duty  of  those  two  na¬ 
tions  to  mediate  between  the  North  and  the  South, 
so  as  to  stop  the  terrible  loss  of  life  and  destruc¬ 
tion  of  property  which  attended  our  Civil  War; 
and  they  asserted  that  any  Americans  who  in 
such  event  refused  to  accept  their  mediation  and 
to  stop  the  war  would  thereby  show  themselves 
the  enemies  of  peace.  Nevertheless,  Abraham 
Lincoln  and  the  men  back  of  him  by  their  attitude 
prevented  all  such  effort  at  mediation,  declaring 
that  they  would  regard  it  as  an  unfriendly  act 
to  the  United  States.  Looking  back  from  a  dis¬ 
tance  of  fifty  years,  we  can  now  see  clearly  that 
Abraham  Lincoln  and  his  supporters  were  right. 


c;o 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


Such  mediation  would  have  been  a  hostile  act,  not 
only  to  the  United  States  but  to  humanity.  The 
men  who  clamored  for  unrighteous  peace  fifty 
years  ago  this  fall  were  the  enemies  of  mankind. 

These  facts  should  be  pondered  by  the  well- 
meaning  men  who  always  clamor  for  peace  with¬ 
out  regard  to  whether  peace  brings  justice  or  in¬ 
justice.  Very  many  of  the  men  and  women  who 
are  at  times  misled  into  demanding  peace,  as  if  it 
were  itself  an  end  instead  of  being  a  means  of 
righteousness,  are  men  of  good  intelligence  and 
sound  heart  who  only  need  seriously  to  consider 
the  facts,  and  who  can  then  be  trusted  to  think 
aright  and  act  aright.  There  is,  however,  an  ele¬ 
ment  of  a  certain  numerical  importance  among 
our  people,  including  the  members  of  the  ultra¬ 
pacificist  group,  who  by  their  teachings  do  some 
real,  although  limited,  mischief.  They  are  a 
feeble  folk,  these  ultrapacificists,  morally  and 
physically;  but  in  a  country  where  voice  and 
vote  are  alike  free,  they  may,  if  their  teachings 
are  not  disregarded,  create  a  condition  of  things 
where  the  crop  they  have  sowed  in  folly  and  weak¬ 
ness  will  be  reaped  with  blood  and  bitter  tears  by 
the  brave  men  and  high-hearted  women  of  the 
nation. 

The  folly  preached  by  some  of  these  individuals 
is  somewhat  startling,  and  if  it  were  translated 
from  words  into  deeds  it  would  constitute  a  crime 


THE  PEACE  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS  9* 


against  the  nation.  One  professed  teacher  of 
morality  made  the  plea  in  so  many  words  that 
we  ought  to  follow  the  example  of  China  and  de¬ 
prive  ourselves  of  all  power  to  repel  foreign  attack. 
Surely  this  writer  must  have  possessed  the  ex¬ 
ceedingly  small  amount  of  information  necessary 
in  order  to  know  that  nearly  half  of  China  was 
under  foreign  dominion  and  that  while  he  was 
writing  the  Germans  and  Japanese  were  battling 
on  Chinese  territory  and  domineering  as  con¬ 
querors  over  the  Chinese  in  that  territory.  Think 
of  the  abject  soul  of  a  man  capable  of  holding  up 
to  the  admiration  of  free-born  American  citizens 
such  a  condition  of  serfage  under  alien  rule ! 

Nor  is  the  folly  confined  only  to  the  male  sex. 
A  number  of  women  teachers  in  Chicago  are 
credited  with  having  proposed,  in  view  of  the  war, 
hereafter  to  prohibit  in  the  teaching  of  history  any 
reference  to  war  and  battles.  Intellectually,  of 
course,  such  persons  show  themselves  unfit  to 
be  retained  as  teachers  a  single  day,  and  indeed 
unfit  to  be  pupils  in  any  school  more  advanced 
than  a  kindergarten.  But  it  is  not  their  intellec¬ 
tual,  it  is  also  their  moral  shortcomings  which  are 
striking.  The  suppression  of  the  truth  is,  of 
course,  as  grave  an  offense  against  morals  as  is 
the  suggestion  of  the  false  or  even  the  lie  direct; 
and  these  teachers  actually  propose  to  teach  un¬ 
truths  to  their  pupils. 


92 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


True  teachers  of  history  must  tell  the  facts  of 
history;  and  if  they  do  not  tell  the  facts  both 
about  the  wars  that  were  righteous  and  the  wars 
that  were  unrighteous,  and  about  the  causes  that 
led  to  these  wars  and  to  success  or  defeat  in  them, 
they  show  themselves  morally  unfit  to  train  the 
minds  of  boys  and  girls.  If  in  addition  to  telling 
the  facts  they  draw  the  lessons  that  should  be 
drawn  from  the  facts,  they  will  give  their  pupils 
a  horror  of  all  wars  that  are  entered  into  wantonly 
or  with  levity  or  in  a  spirit  of  mere  brutal  aggres¬ 
sion  or  save  under  dire  necessity.  But  they  will 
also  teach  that  among  the  noblest  deeds  of  man¬ 
kind  are  those  that  have  been  done  in  great  wars 
for  liberty,  in  wars  of  self-defense,  in  wars  for  the 
relief  of  oppressed  peoples,  in  wars  for  putting  an 
end  to  wrong-doing  in  the  dark  places  of  the  globe. 

Any  teachers,  in  school  or  college,  who  occupied 
the  position  that  these  foolish,  foolish  teachers 
have  sought  to  take,  would  be  forever  estopped 
from  so  much  as  mentioning  Washington  and 
Lincoln ;  because  their  lives  are  forever  asso¬ 
ciated  with  great  wars  for  righteousness.  These 
teachers  would  be  forever  estopped  from  so  much 
as  mentioning  the  shining  names  of  Marathon  and 
Salamis.  They  would  seek  to  blind  their  pupils’ 
eyes  to  the  glory  held  in  the  deeds  and  deaths 
of  Joan  of  Arc,  of  Andreas  Hofer,  of  Alfred  the 
Great,  of  Arnold  von  Winkelried,  of  Kosciusko 


THE  PEACE  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS  93 


and  Rakoczy.  They  would  be  obliged  to  warn 
their  pupils  against  ever  reading  Schiller’s  “Wil¬ 
liam  Tell”  or  the  poetry  of  Koemer.  Such  men 
are  deaf  to  the  lament  running: 

“  Oh,  why,  Patrick  Sarsfield,  did  we  let  your  ships  sail, 
Across  the  dark  waters  from  green  Innisfail?” 

To  them  Holmes’s  ballad  of  Bunker  Hill  and 
Whittier’s  “Laus  Deo,”  MacMaster’s  Ode  to  the 
Old  Continentals”  and  O’Hara’s  “Bivouac  of 
the  Dead”  are  meaningless.  Their  cold  and 
timid  hearts  are  not  stirred  by  the  surge  of  the 
tremendous  “Battle  Hymn  of  the  Republic.”  On 
them  lessons  of  careers  like  those  of  Timoleon  and 
John  Hampden  are  lost;  in  their  eyes  the  lofty 
self-abnegation  of  Robert  Lee  and  Stonewall  Jack- 
son  was  folly ;  their  dull  senses  do  not  thrill  to  the 
deathless  deaths  of  the  men  who  died  at  Ther¬ 
mopylae  and  at  the  Alamo — the  fight  of  those 
grim  Texans  of  which  it  was  truthfully  said  that 
Thermopylae  had  its  messengers  of  death  but  the 
Alamo  had  none. 

It  has  actually  been  proposed  by  some  of  these 
shivering  apostles  of  the  gospel  of  national  abject¬ 
ness  that,  in  view  of  the  destruction  that  has  fallen 
on  certain  peaceful  powers  of  Europe,  we  should 
abandon  all  efforts  at  self-defense,  should  stop 
building  battle-ships,  and  cease  to  take  any  mea¬ 
sures  to  defend  ourselves  if  attacked.  It  is  diffi- 


94 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


cult  seriously  to  consider  such  a  proposition.  It 
is  precisely  and  exactly  as  if  the  inhabitants  of  a 
village  in  whose  neighborhood  highway  robberies 
had  occurred  should  propose  to  meet  the  crisis  by 
depriving  the  local  policeman  of  his  revolver  and 
club. 

There  are,  however,  many  high-minded  people 
who  do  not  agree  with  these  extremists,  but  who 
nevertheless  need  to  be  enlightened  as  to  the 
actual  facts.  These  good  people,  who  are  busy 
people  and  not  able  to  devote  much  time  to 
thoughts  about  international  affairs,  are  often  con¬ 
fused  by  men  whose  business  it  is  to  know  bet¬ 
ter.  For  example,  a  few  weeks  ago  these  good 
people  were  stirred  to  a  moment’s  belief  that 
something  had  been  accomplished  by  the  enact¬ 
ment  at  Washington  of  a  score  or  two  of  all-in¬ 
clusive  arbitration  treaties;  being  not  unnaturally 
misled  by  the  fact  that  those  responsible  for  the 
passage  of  the  treaties  indulged  in  some  not  wholly 
harmless  bleating  as  to  the  good  effects  they  would 
produce.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  probably  will 
not  produce  the  smallest  effect  of  any  kind  or  sort. 
Yet  it  is  possible  they  may  have  a  mischievous 
effect,  inasmuch  as  under  certain  circumstances  to 
fulfil  them  would  cause  frightful  disaster  to  the 
United  States,  while  to  break  them,  even  although 
under  compulsion  and  because  it  was  absolutely 
necessary,  would  be  fruitful  of  keen  humiliation 


THE  PEACE  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS  95 


to  every  right-thinking  man  who  is  jealous  of  our 
international  good  name. 

If  for  example,  whatever  the  outcome  of  the 
present  war,  a  great  triumphant  military  despot¬ 
ism  declared  that  it  would  not  recognize  the  Mon¬ 
roe  Doctrine  or  seized  Magdalena  Bay,  or  one  of 
the  Dutch  West  Indies,  or  the  Island  of  St. 
Thomas,  and  fortified  it ;  or  if — as  would  be  quite 
possible — it  announced  that  we  had  no  right  to 
fortify  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and  itself  landed 
on  adjacent  territory  to  erect  similar  fortifica¬ 
tions;  then,  under  these  absurd  treaties,  we 
would  be  obliged,  if  we  happened  to  have  made 
one  of  them  with  one  of  the  countries  involved, 
to  go  into  an  interminable  discussion  of  the  sub¬ 
ject  before  a  joint  commission,  while  the  hostile 
nation  proceeded  to  make  its  position  impreg¬ 
nable.  It  seems  incredible  that  the  United  States 
government  could  have  made  such  treaties;  but 
it  has  just  done  so,  with  the  warm  approval  of 
the  professional  pacificists. 

These  treaties  were  entered  into  when  the 
administration  had  before  its  eyes  at  that  very 
moment  the  examples  of  Belgium  and  Luxem¬ 
bourg,  which  showed  beyond  possibility  of  doubt, 
especially  when  taken  in  connection  with  other 
similar  incidents  that  have  occurred  during  the 
last  couple  of  decades,  that  there  are  various  great 
military  empires  in  the  Old  World  who  will  pay 


96 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


not  one  moment’s  heed  to  the  most  solemn  and 
binding  treaty,  if  it  is  to  their  interest  to  break 
it.  If  any  one  of  these  empires,  as  the  result  of 
the  present  contest,  obtains  something  approach¬ 
ing  to  a  position  of  complete  predominance  in  the 
Old  World,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  it  would 
pay  no  heed  whatever  to  these  treaties,  if  it  de¬ 
sired  to  better  its  position  in  the  New  World  by 
taking  possession  of  the  Dutch  or  Danish  West  In¬ 
dies  or  of  the  territory  of  some  weak  American 
state  on  the  mainland  of  the  continent.  In  such 
event  we  would  be  obliged  either  instantly  our¬ 
selves  to  repudiate  the  scandalous  treaties  by 
which  the  government  at  Washington  has  just 
sought  to  tie  our  hands — and  thereby  expose  our¬ 
selves  in  our  turn  to  the  charge  of  bad  faith — or 
else  we  should  have  to  abdicate  our  position  as 
a  great  power  and  submit  to  abject  humiliation. 

Since  these  articles  of  mine  were  written  and 
published,  I  am  glad  to  see  that  James  Bryce,  a 
lifelong  advocate  of  peace  and  the  stanchest  pos¬ 
sible  friend  of  the  United  States,  has  taken  pre¬ 
cisely  the  position  herein  taken.  He  dwells,  as 
I  have  dwelt,  upon  the  absolute  need  of  pro¬ 
tecting  small  states  that  behave  themselves  from 
absorption  in  great  military  empires.  He  insists, 
as  I  have  insisted,  upon  the  need  of  the  reduction 
of  armaments,  the  quenching  of  the  baleful  spirit 
of  militarism,  and  the  admission  of  the  peoples 


THE  PEACE  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS  97 


everywhere  to  a  fuller  share  in  the  control  of  for¬ 
eign  policy — all  to  be  accomplished  by  some  kind 
of  international  league  of  peace.  He  adds,  how¬ 
ever,  as  the  culminating  and  most  important  por¬ 
tion  of  his  article : 

‘  ‘  But  no  scheme  for  preventing  future  wars  will 
have  any  chance  of  success  unless  it  rests  upon  the 
assurance  that  the  states  which  enter  it  will  loyally 
and  steadfastly  abide  by  it  and  that  each  and  all 
of  them  will  join  in  coercing  by  their  overwhelming 
united  strength  any  state  which  may  disregard 
the  obligations  it  has  undertaken.” 

This  is  almost  exactly  what  I  have  said.  In¬ 
deed,  it  is  almost  word  for  word  what  I  have  said 
— an  agreement  which  is  all  the  more  striking 
because  when  he  wrote  it  Lord  Bryce  could  not 
have  known  what  I  had  written.  We  must  insist 
on  righteousness  first  and  foremost.  We  must 
strive  for  peace  always;  but  we  must  never  hesi¬ 
tate  to  put  righteousness  above  peace.  In  order 
to  do  this,  we  must  put  force  back  of  righteousness, 
for,  as  the  world  now  is,  national  righteousness 
without  force  back  of  it  speedily  becomes  a  matter 
of  derision.  To  the  doctrine  that  might  makes 
right,  it  is  utterly  useless  to  oppose  the  doctrine 
of  right  unbacked  by  might. 

It  is  not  even  true  that  what  the  pacificists  de¬ 
sire  is  right.  The  leaders  of  the  pacificists  of  this 
country  who  for  five  months  now  have  been  cry- 


98 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


ing,  “Peace,  peace,”  have  been  too  timid  even  to 
say  that  they  want  the  peace  to  be  a  righteous  one. 
We  needlessly  dignify  such  outcries  when  we 
speak  of  them  as  well-meaning.  The  weaklings 
who  raise  their  shrill  piping  for  a  peace  that  shall 
consecrate  successful  wrong  occupy  a  position 
quite  as  immoral  as  and  infinitely  more  contempt¬ 
ible  than  the  position  of  the  wrong-doers  them¬ 
selves.  The  ruthless  strength  of  the  great  abso¬ 
lutist  leaders — Elizabeth  of  England,  Catherine 
of  Russia,  Peter  the  Great,  Frederick  the  Great, 
Napoleon,  Bismarck — is  certainly  infinitely  better 
for  their  own  nations  and  is  probably  better  for 
mankind  at  large  than  the  loquacious  impotence, 
ultimately  trouble-breeding,  which  has  recently 
marked  our  own  international  policy.  A  policy  of 
blood  and  iron  is  sometimes  very  wicked;  but  it 
rarely  does  as  much  harm,  and  never  excites  as 
much  derision,  as  a  policy  of  milk  and  water — 
and  it  comes  dangerously  near  flattery  to  call  the 
foreign  policy  of  the  United  States  under  Presi¬ 
dent  Wilson  and  Mr.  Bryan  merely  one  of  milk 
and  water.  Strength  at  least  commands  respect ; 
whereas  the  prattling  feebleness  that  dares  not 
rebuke  any  concrete  wrong,  and  whose  proposals 
for  right  are  marked  by  sheer  fatuity,  is  fit  only 
to  excite  weeping  among  angels  and  among  men 
the  bitter  laughter  of  scorn. 

At  this  moment  any  peace  which  leaves  unre- 


THE  PEACE  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS  99 


dressed  the  wrongs  of  Belgium,  and  which  does 
not  effectively  guarantee  Belgium  and  all  other 
small  nations  that  behave  themselves,  against  the 
repetition  of  such  wrongs  would  be  a  well-nigh 
unmixed  evil.  As  far  as  we  personally  are  con¬ 
cerned,  such  a  peace  would  inevitably  mean  that 
we  should  at  once  and  in  haste  have  to  begin  to 
arm  ourselves  or  be  exposed  in  our  turn  to  the 
most  frightful  risk  of  disaster.  Let  our  people 
take  thought  for  the  future.  What  Germany  did 
to  Belgium  because  her  need  was  great  and  be¬ 
cause  she  possessed  the  ruthless  force  with  which 
to  meet  her  need  she  would,  of  course,  do  to  us  if 
her  need  demanded  it;  and  in  such  event  what 
her  representatives  now  say  as  to  her  intentions 
toward  America  would  trouble  her  as  little  as  her 
signature  to  the  neutrality  treaties  troubled  her 
when  she  subjugated  Belgium.  Nor  does  she 
stand  alone  in  her  views  of  international  mo¬ 
rality.  More  than  one  of  the  great  powers  en¬ 
gaged  in  this  war  has  shown  by  her  conduct  in 
the  past  that  if  it  profited  her  she  would  with¬ 
out  the  smallest  scruple  treat  any  land  in  the  two 
Americas  as  Belgium  has  been  treated.  What 
has  recently  happened  in  the  Old  World  should  be 
pondered  deeply  by  the  nations  of  the  New  World ; 
by  Chile,  Argentina,  and  Brazil  no  less  than  by 
the  United  States.  The  world  war  has  proved 
beyond  peradventure  that  the  principle  underly- 


IOO 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


ing  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  of  vast  moment  to 
the  welfare  of  all  America,  and  that  neither  this 
nor  any  other  principle  can  be  made  effective 
save  as  power  is  put  behind  it. 

Belgium  was  absolutely  innocent  of  offense. 
Her  cities  have  been  laid  waste  or  held  to  ransom 
for  gigantic  sums  of  money;  her  fruitful  fields 
have  been  trampled  into  mire;  her  sons  have 
died  on  the  field  of  battle;  her  daughters  are 
broken-hearted  fugitives;  a  million  of  her  people 
have  fled  to  foreign  lands.  Entirely  disregarding 
all  accusations  as  to  outrages  on  individuals,  it 
yet  remains  true  that  disaster  terrible  beyond  be¬ 
lief  has  befallen  this  peaceful  nation  of  six  million 
people  who  themselves  had  been  guilty  of  not 
even  the  smallest  wrong-doing.  Louvain  and  Di- 
nant  are  smoke-grimed  and  blood-stained  ruins. 
Brussels  has  been  held  to  enormous  ransom, 
although  it  did  not  even  strive  to  defend  itself. 
Antwerp  did  strive  to  defend  itself.  Because 
soldiers  in  the  forts  attempted  to  repulse  the 
enemy,  hundreds  of  houses  in  the  undefended  city 
were  wrecked  with  bombs  from  air-ships,  and 
throngs  of  peaceful  men,  women,  and  children 
were  driven  from  their  homes  by  the  sharp  terror 
of  death.  Be  it  remembered  always  that  not  one 
man  in  Brussels,  not  one  man  in  Antwerp,  had 
even  the  smallest  responsibility  for  the  disaster 
inflicted  upon  them.  Innocence  has  proved  not 


THE  PEACE  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS  ioi 


even  the  smallest  safeguard  against  such  woe  and 
suffering  as  we  in  this  land  can  at  present  hardly 
imagine. 

What  befell  Antwerp  and  Brussels  will  surely 
some  day  befall  New  York  or  San  Francisco,  and 
may  happen  to  many  an  inland  city  also,  if  we  do 
not  shake  off  our  supine  folly,  if  we  trust  for  safety 
to  peace  treaties  unbacked  by  force.  At  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  last  month,  by  the  appointment  of  the 
President,  peace  services  were  held  in  the  churches 
of  this  land.  As  far  as  these  services  consisted  of 
sermons  and  prayers  of  good  and  wise  people  who 
wished  peace  only  if  it  represented  righteousness, 
who  did  not  desire  that  peace  should  come  unless 
it  came  to  consecrate  justice  and  not  wrong-doing, 
good  and  not  evil,  the  movement  represented  good. 
In  so  far,  however,  as  the  movement  was  under¬ 
stood  to  be  one  for  immediate  peace  without  any 
regard  to  righteousness  or  justice,  without  any 
regard  for  righting  the  wrongs  of  those  who  have 
been  crushed  by  unmerited  disaster,  then  the 
movement  represented  mischief,  precisely  as  fifty 
years  ago,  in  1864,  in  our  own  country  a  similar 
movement  for  peace,  to  be  obtained  by  acknowl- 
•  edgment  of  disunion  and  by  the  perpetuation  of 
slavery,  would  have  represented  mischief.  In  the 
present  case,  however,  the  mischief  was  confined 
purely  to  those  taking  part  in  the  movement  in 
an  unworthy  spirit;  for  (like  the  peace  parades 


102 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


and  newspaper  peace  petitions)  it  was  a  merely 
subjective  phenomenon;  it  had  not  the  slightest 
effect  of  any  kind,  sort,  or  description  upon  any 
of  the  combatants  abroad  and  could  not  possibly 
have  any  effect  upon  them.  It  is  well  for  our  own 
sakes  that  we  should  pray  sincerely  and  humbly 
for  the  peace  of  righteousness;  but  we  must 
guard  ourselves  from  any  illusion  as  to  the  news 
of  our  having  thus  prayed  producing  the  least 
effect  upon  those  engaged  in  the  war. 

There  is  just  one  way  in  which  to  meet  the  up¬ 
holders  of  the  doctrine  that  might  makes  right. 
To  do  so  we  must  prove  that  right  will  make  might, 
by  backing  right  with  might. 

In  his  second  inaugural  address  Andrew  Jackson 
laid  down  the  rule  by  which  every  national  Amer¬ 
ican  administration  ought  to  guide  itself,  saying: 
“The  foreign  policy  adopted  by  our  government 
is  to  do  justice  to  all,  and  to  submit  to  wrong  by 
none.” 

The  statement  of  the  dauntless  old  fighter  of 
New  Orleans  is  as  true  now  as  when  he  wrote  it. 
We  must  stand  absolutely  for  righteousness.  But 
to  do  so  is  utterly  without  avail  unless  we  possess 
the  strength  and  the  loftiness  of  spirit  which  will 
back  righteousness  with  deeds  and  not  mere  words. 
We  must  clear  the  rubbish  from  off  our  souls  and 
admit  that  everything  that  has  been  done  in  pass¬ 
ing  peace  treaties,  arbitration  treaties,  neutrality 


THE  PEACE  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS  103 


treaties,  Hague  treaties,  and  the  like,  with  no 
sanction  of  force  behind  them,  amounts  to  lit¬ 
erally  and  absolutely  zero,  to  literally  and  abso¬ 
lutely  nothing,  in  any  time  of  serious  crisis.  We 
must  recognize  that  to  enter  into  foolish  treaties 
which  cannot  be  kept  is  as  wicked  as  to  break 
treaties  which  can  and  ought  to  be  kept.  We 
must  labor  for  an  international  agreement  among 
the  great  civilized  nations  which  shall  put  the  full 
force  of  all  of  them  back  of  any  one  of  them,  and 
of  any  well-behaved  weak  nation,  which  is  wronged 
by  any  other  power.  Until  we  have  completed 
this  purpose,  we  must  keep  ourselves  ready,  high 
of  heart  and  undaunted  of  soul,  to  back  our  rights 
with  our  strength. 


CHAPTER  VII 


AN  INTERNATIONAL  POSSE  COMITATUS 


MOST  Western  Americans  who  are  past 
middle  age  remember  young,  rapidly 
growing,  and  turbulent  communities  in 
which  there  was  at  first  complete  anarchy.  Dur¬ 
ing  the  time  when  there  was  no  central  police 
power  to  which  to  appeal  every  man  worth  his 
salt,  in  other  words  every  man  fit  for  existence 
in  such  a  community,  had  to  be  prepared  to 
defend  himself ;  and  usually,  although  not  al¬ 
ways,  the  fact  that  he  was  prepared  saved  him 
from  all  trouble,  whereas  unpreparedness  was  ab¬ 
solutely  certain  to  invite  disaster. 

In  such  communities  before  there  was  a  regular 
and  fully  organized  police  force  there  came  an 
interval  during  which  the  preservation  of  the 
peace  depended  upon  the  action  of  a  single  official, 
a  sheriff  or  marshal,  who  if  the  law  was  defied  in 
arrogant  fashion  summoned  a  posse  comitatus 
composed  of  as  many  armed,  thoroughly  efficient, 
law-abiding  citizens  as  were  necessary  in  order  to 
put  a  stop  to  the  wrong-doing.  Under  these  con- 


104 


POSSE  COMITATUS  105 

ditions  each  man  had  to  keep  himself  armed  and 
both  able  and  willing  to  respond  to  the  call  of 
the  peace-officer;  and  furthermore,  if  he  had  a 
shred  of  wisdom  he  kept  himself  ready  in  an 
emergency  to  act  on  his  own  behalf  if  the  peace- 
officer  did  not  or  could  not  do  his  duty. 

In  such  towns  I  have  myself  more  than  once 
seen  well-meaning  but  foolish  citizens  endeavor 
to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  case  by  simply 
passing  resolutions  of  disarmament  without  any 
power  back  of  them.  That  is,  they  passed  self- 
denying  ordinances,  saying  that  nobody  was  to 
carry  arms;  but  they  failed  to  provide  methods 
for  carrying  such  ordinances  into  effect.  In  every 
case  the  result  was  the  same.  Good  citizens  for 
the  moment  abandoned  their  weapons.  The  bad 
men  continued  to  carry  them.  Things  grew  worse 
instead  of  better;  and  then  the  good  men  came 
to  their  senses  and  clothed  some  representative  of 
the  police  with  power  to  employ  force,  potential 
or  existing,  against  the  wrong-doers. 

Affairs  in  the  international  world  are  at  this 
time  in  analogous  condition.  There  is  no  central 
police  power,  and  not  the  least  likelihood  of  its 
being  created.  Well-meaning  enthusiasts  have 
tried  their  hands  to  an  almost  unlimited  extent 
in  the  way  of  devising  all-inclusive  arbitration 
treaties,  neutrality  treaties,  disarmament  propo¬ 
sals,  and  the  like,  with  no  force  back  of  them, 


106  THE  WORLD  WAR 

and  the  result  has  been  stupendous  and  discredit¬ 
able  failure.  Preparedness  for  war  on  the  part 
of  individual  nations  has  sometimes  but  not  al¬ 
ways  averted  war.  Unpreparedness  for  war,  as 
in  the  case  of  China,  Korea,  and  Luxembourg, 
has  invariably  invited  smashing  disaster,  and 
sometimes  complete  conquest.  Surely  these  con¬ 
ditions  should  teach  a  lesson  that  any  man  who 
runs  may  read  unless  his  eyes  have  been  blinded 
by  folly  or  his  heart  weakened  by  cowardice. 

The  immediately  vital  lesson  for  each  individual 
nation  is  that  as  things  are  now  it  must  in  time 
of  crisis  rely  on  its  own  stout  hearts  and  ready 
hands  for  self-defense.  Existing  treaties  are  utterly 
worthless  so  far  as  concerns  protecting  any  free, 
well-behaved  people  from  one  of  the  great  aggres¬ 
sive  military  monarchies  of  the  world.  The  all- 
inclusive  arbitration  treaties  such  as  those  recently 
negotiated  by  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Bryan,  when 
taken  in  connection  with  our  refusal  to  act  under 
existing  treaties,  represent  about  the  highest  point 
of  slightly  mischievous  fatuity  which  can  be  at¬ 
tained  in  international  matters.  Inasmuch  as  we 
ourselves  are  the  power  that  initiated  their  negoti¬ 
ation,  we  can  do  our  plain  duty  to  ourselves  and 
our  neighbors  only  by  ourselves  proceeding  from 
the  outset  on  the  theory,  and  by  warning  our  neigh¬ 
bors,  that  these  treaties  in  any  time  of  crisis  will 
certainly  not  be  respected  by  any  serious  adver- 


POSSE  COMITATUS 


107 


sary,  and  probably  will  of  necessity  be  violated  by 
ourselves.  They  do  not  in  even  the  very  smallest 
degree  relieve  us  of  the  necessity  of  preparedness 
for  war.  To  this  point  of  our  duty  to  be  prepared 
I  will  return  later. 

But  we  ought  not  to  and  must  not  rest  content 
merely  with  working  for  our  own  defense.  The 
utterly  appalling  calamity  that  has  befallen  the 
civilized  world  during  the  last  five  months,  and, 
above  all,  the  horrible  catastrophe  that  has  over¬ 
whelmed  Belgium  without  Belgium’s  having  the 
smallest  responsibility  in  the  matter,  must  make 
the  least  thoughtful  realize  how  unsatisfactory  is 
the  present  basis  of  international  relations  among 
civilized  powers.  In  order  to  make  things  better 
several  things  are  necessary.  We  must  clearly 
grasp  the  fact  that  mere  selfish  avoidance  of  duty 
to  others,  even  although  covered  by  such  fine 
words  as  “peace”  and  “neutrality,”  is  a  wretched 
thing  and  an  obstacle  to  securing  the  peace  of 
righteousness  throughout  the  world.  We  must  rec¬ 
ognize  clearly  the  old  common-law  doctrine  that  a 
right  without  a  remedy  is  void.  We  must  firmly 
grasp  the  fact  that  measures  should  be  taken  to 
put  force  back  of  good  faith  in  the  observance 
of  treaties.  The  worth  of  treaties  depends  purely 
upon  the  good  faith  with  which  they  are  exe¬ 
cuted;  and  it  is  mischievous  folly  to  enter  into 
treaties  without  providing  for  their  execution  and 


io8 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


wicked  folly  to  enter  into  them  if  they  ought  not 
to  be  executed; 

It  is  necessary  to  devise  means  for  putting  the 
collective  and  efficient  strength  of  all  the  great 
powers  of  civilization  back  of  any  well-behaved 
power  which  is  wronged  by  another  power.  In 
other  words,  we  must  devise  means  for  executing 
treaties  in  good  faith,  by  the  establishment  of 
some  great  international  tribunal,  and  by  securing 
the  enforcement  of  the  decrees  of  this  tribunal 
through  the  action  of  a  posse  comitatus  of  power¬ 
ful  and  civilized  nations,  all  of  them  being  bound 
by  solemn  agreement  to  coerce  any  power  that 
offends  against  the  decrees  of  the  tribunal.  That 
there  will  be  grave  difficulties  in  successfully 
working  out  this  plan  I  would  be  the  first  to  con¬ 
cede,  and  I  would  be  the  first  to  insist  that  to 
work  it  out  successfully  would  be  impossible 
unless  the  nations  acted  in  good  faith.  But  the 
plan  is  feasible,  and  it  is  the  only  one  which  at  the 
moment  offers  any  chance  of  success.  Ever  since 
the  days  of  Henry  IV  of  France  there  has  been  a 
growth,  slow  and  halting  to  be  sure  but  yet  evi¬ 
dently  a  growth,  in  recognition  by  the  public  con¬ 
science  of  civilized  nations  that  there  should  be  a 
method  of  making  the  rules  of  international 
morality  obligatory  and  binding  among  the  powers. 
But  merely  to  trust  to  public  opinion  without 
organized  force  back  of  it  is  silly.  Force  must  be 


POSSE  COMITATUS 


109 


put  back  of  justice,  and  nations  must  not  shrink 
from  the  duty  of  proceeding  by  any  means  that 
are  necessary  against  wrong-doers.  It  is  the  fail¬ 
ure  to  recognize  these  vital  truths  that  has  ren¬ 
dered  the  actions  of  our  government  during  the 
last  few  years  impotent  to  preserve  world  peace 
and  fruitful  only  in  earning  for  us  the  half -veiled 
derision  of  other  nations. 

The  attitude  of  the  present  administration  dur¬ 
ing  the  last  five  months  shows  how  worthless  the 
present  treaties,  unbacked  by  force,  are,  and  how 
utterly  ineffective  mere  passive  neutrality  is  to 
secure  even  the  smallest  advance  in  world  moral¬ 
ity.  I  have  been  very  reluctant  in  any  way  to 
criticise  the  action  of  the  present  administration 
in  foreign  affairs;  I  have  faithfully,  and  in  some 
cases  against  my  own  deep-rooted  personal  con¬ 
victions,  sought  to  justify  what  it  has  done  in 
Mexico  and  as  regards  the  present  war;  but  the 
time  has  come  when  loyalty  to  the  administra¬ 
tion’s  action  in  foreign  affairs  means  disloyalty 
to  our  national  self-interest  and  to  our  obligations 
toward  humanity  at  large.  As  regards  Belgium 
the  administration  has  clearly  taken  the  ground 
that  our  own  selfish  ease  forbids  us  to  fulfil  our 
explicit  obligations  to  small  neutral  states  when 
they  are  deeply  wronged.  It  will  never  be  pos¬ 
sible  in  any  war  to  commit  a  clearer  breach  of  in¬ 
ternational  morality  than  that  committed  by 


no 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


Germany  in  the  invasion  and  subjugation  of 
Belgium.  Every  one  of  the  nations  involved  in 
this  war,  and  the  United  States  as  well,  have 
committed  such  outrages  in  the  past.  But  the 
very  purpose  of  the  Hague  conventions  and  of 
all  similar  international  agreements  was  to  put  a 
stop  to  such  misconduct  in  the  future. 

At  the  outset  I  ask  our  people  to  remember 
that  what  I  say  is  based  on  the  assumption  that 
we  are  bound  in  good  faith  to  fulfil  our  treaty 
obligations;  that  we  will  neither  favor  nor  con¬ 
demn  any  other  nation  except  on  the  ground  of  its 
behavior;  that  we  feel  as  much  good-will  to  the 
people  of  Germany  or  Austria  as  to  the  people  of 
England,  of  France,  or  of  Russia;  that  we  speak 
for  Belgium  only  as  we  could  speak  for  Holland 
or  Switzerland  or  one  of  the  Scandinavian  or 
Balkan  nations;  and  that  if  the  circumstances  as 
regards  Belgium  had  been  reversed  we  would  have 
protested  as  emphatically  against  wrong  action 
by  England  or  France  as  we  now  protest  against 
wrong  action  by  Germany. 

The  United  States  and  the  great  powers  now 
at  war  were  parties  to  the  international  code 
created  in  the  regulations  annexed  to  the  Hague 
conventions  of  1899  and  1907.  As  President, 
acting  on  behalf  of  this  government,  and  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  unanimous  wish  of  our  people, 
I  ordered  the  signature  of  the  United  States  to 


POSSE  COMITATUS 


m 


these  conventions.  Most  emphatically  I  would 
not  have  permitted  such  a  farce  to  have  gone 
through  if  it  had  entered  my  head  that  this  gov¬ 
ernment  would  not  consider  itself  bound  to  do 
all  it  could  to  see  that  the  regulations  to  which  it 
made  itself  a  party  were  actually  observed  when 
the  necessity  for  their  observance  arose.  I  can¬ 
not  imagine  any  sensible  nation  thinking  it  worth 
while  to  sign  future  Hague  conventions  if  even 
such  a  powerful  neutral  as  the  United  States 
does  not  care  enough  about  them  to  protest 
against  their  open  breach.  Of  the  present  neutral 
powers  the  United  States  of  America  is  the  most 
disinterested  and  the  strongest,  and  should  there¬ 
fore  bear  the  main  burden  of  responsibility  in  this 
matter. 

It  is  quite  possible  to  make  an  argument  to  the 
effect  that  we  never  should  have  entered  into  the 
Hague  conventions,  because  our  sole  duty  is  to 
ourselves  and  not  to  others,  and  our  sole  concern 
should  be  to  keep  ourselves  at  peace,  at  any 
cost,  and  not  to  help  other  powers  that  are  op¬ 
pressed,  and  not  to  protest  against  wrong-doing. 
I  do  not  myself  accept  this  view;  but  in  practice 
it  is  the  view  taken  by  the  present  administra¬ 
tion,  apparently  with  at  the  moment  the  approval 
of  the  mass  of  our  people.  Such  a  policy,  while 
certainly  not  exalted,  and  in  my  judgment  neither 
far-sighted  nor  worthy  of  a  high-spirited  and  lofty- 


1 1 2 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


souled  nation,  is  yet  in  a  sense  understandable, 
and  in  a  sense  defensible. 

But  it  is  quite  indefensible  to  make  agreements 
and  not  live  up  to  them.  The  climax  of  absurdity 
is  for  any  administration  to  do  what  the  present 
administration  during  the  last  five  months  has 
done.  Mr.  Wilson’s  administration  has  shirked 
doing  the  duty  plainly  imposed  on  it  by  the 
obligations  of  the  conventions  already  entered 
into;  and  at  the  same  time  it  has  sought  to 
obtain  cheap  credit  by  entering  into  a  couple 
of  score  new  treaties  infinitely  more  drastic  than 
the  old  ones,  and  quite  impossible  of  honest  ful¬ 
filment.  When  the  Belgian  people  complained 
of  violations  of  the  Hague  tribunal,  it  was  a 
mockery,  it  was  a  timid  and  unworthy  abandon¬ 
ment  of  duty  on  our  part,  for  President  Wilson 
to  refer  them  back  to  the  Hague  court,  when  he 
knew  that  the  Hague  court  was  less  than  a 
shadow  unless  the  United  States  by  doing  its 
clear  duty  gave  the  Hague  court  some  substance. 
If  the  Hague  conventions  represented  nothing 
but  the  expression  of  feeble  aspirations  toward 
decency,  uttered  only  in  time  of  profound  peace, 
and  not  to  be  even  expressed  above  a  whisper 
when  with  awful  bloodshed  and  suffering  the 
conventions  were  broken,  then  it  was  idle  folly 
to  enter  into  them.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
meant  anything,  if  the  United  States  had  a  sen- 


POSSE  COMITATUS 


1 13 


ous  purpose,  a  serious  sense  of  its  obligations  to 
world  righteousness,  when  it  entered  into  them, 
then  its  plain  duty  as  the  trustee  of  civilization 
is  to  investigate  the  charges  solemnly  made  as  to 
the  violation  of  the  Hague  conventions.  If  such 
investigation  is  made,  and  if  the  charges  prove 
well  founded,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  the  United 
States  to  take  whatever  action  may  be  necessary 
to  vindicate  the  principles  of  international  law 
set  forth  in  these  conventions. 

I  am  not  concerned  with  the  charges  of  individ¬ 
ual  atrocity.  The  prime  fact  is  that  Belgium 
committed  no  offense  whatever,  and  yet  that 
her  territory  has  been  invaded  and  her  people 
subjugated.  This  prime  fact  cannot  be  left  out 
of  consideration  in  dealing  with  any  matter  that 
has  occurred  in  connection  with  it.  Her  neutral¬ 
ity  has  certainly  been  violated,  and  this  is  in 
clear  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  Hague  conventions.  It  appears  clear  that 
undefended  towns  have  been  bombarded,  and 
that  towns  which  were  defended  have  been  at¬ 
tacked  with  bombs  at  a  time  when  no  attack 
was  made  upon  the  defenses.  This  is  certainly 
in  contravention  of  the  Hague  agreement  for¬ 
bidding  the  bombardment  of  undefended  towns. 
Illegal  and  excessive  contributions  are  expressly 
condemned  under  Articles  49  and  52  of  the  con¬ 
ventions.  If  these  articles  do  not  forbid  the 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


1 14 

levying  of  such  sums  as  $40,000,000  from  Brussels 
and  $90,000,000  from  the  province  of  Brabant, 
then  the  articles  are  absolutely  meaningless. 
Articles  43  and  50  explicitly  forbid  the  infliction 
of  a  collective  penalty,  pecuniary  or  otherwise,  on 
a  population  on  account  of  acts  of  individuals  for 
which  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  collectively  re¬ 
sponsible.  Either  this  prohibition  is  meaningless 
or  it  prohibits  just  such  acts  as  the  punitive 
destruction  of  Vise,  Louvain,  Aerschot,  and 
Dinant.  Furthermore,  a  great  deal  of  the  ap¬ 
palling  devastation  of  central  and  eastern  Belgium 
has  been  apparently  terrorizing  and  not  punitive 
in  its  purpose,  and  this  is  explicitly  forbidden  by 
the  Hague  conventions. 

Now,  it  may  be  that  there  is  an  explanation 
and  justification  for  a  portion  of  what  has  been 
done.  But  if  the  Hague  conventions  mean  any¬ 
thing,  and  if  bad  faith  in  the  observation  of 
treaties  is  not  to  be  treated  with  cynical  indif¬ 
ference,  then  the  United  States  government  should 
inform  itself  as  to  the  facts,  and  should  take  what¬ 
ever  action  is  necessary  in  reference  thereto.  The 
extent  to  which  the  action  should  go  may  properly 
be  a  subject  for  discussion.  But  that  there  should 
be  some  action  is  beyond  discussion ;  unless,  indeed, 
we  ourselves  are  content  to  take  the  view  that 
treaties,  conventions,  and  international  engage¬ 
ments  and  agreements  of  all  kinds  are  to  be 


POSSE  COMITATUS  US 

treated  by  us  and  by  everybody  else  as  what 
they  have  been  authoritatively  declared  to  be, 
“scraps  of  paper,”  the  writing  on  which  is  in¬ 
tended  for  no  better  purpose  than  temporarily  to 
amuse  the  feeble-minded. 

If  the  above  statements  seem  in  the  eyes  of  my 
German  friends  hostile  to  Germany,  let  me  em¬ 
phasize  the  fact  that  they  are  predicated  upon  a 
course  of  action  which  if  extended  and  applied  as 
it  should  be  extended  and  applied  would  range 
the  United  States  on  the  side  of  Germany  if  any 
such  assault  were  made  upon  Germany  as  has 
been  made  upon  Belgium,  or  if  either  Belgium  or 
any  of  the  other  allies  committed  similar  wrong¬ 
doing.  Many  Germans  assert  and  believe  that 
if  Germany  had  not  acted  as  she  did  France  and 
England  would  have  invaded  Belgium  and  have 
committed  similar  wrongs.  In  such  case  it  would 
have  been  our  clear  duty  to  behave  toward  them 
exactly  as  we  ought  now  to  behave  toward  Ger¬ 
many.  But  the  fact  that  other  powers  might 
under  other  conditions  do  wrong,  affords  no  justi¬ 
fication  for  failure  to  act  on  the  wrong  that  has 
actually  been  committed.  It  must  always  be 
kept  in  mind,  however,  that  we  cannot  expect  the 
nation  against  whose  actions  we  protest  to  accept 
our  position  as  warranted,  unless  we  make  it  clear 
that  we  have  both  the  will  and  the  power  to  in¬ 
terfere  on  behalf  of  that  nation  if  in  its  turn  it  is 


n6 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


oppressed.  In  other  words,  we  must  show  that 
we  believe  in  right  and  therefore  in  living  up  to 
our  promises  in  good  faith;  and,  furthermore,  that 
we  are  both  able  and  ready  to  put  might  behind 
right. 

As  I  have  before  said,  I  think  that  the  party 
in  Germany  which  believes  in  a  policy  of  aggres¬ 
sion  represents  but  a  minority  of  the  nation.  It 
is  powerful  only  because  the  great  majority  of 
the  German  people  are  rightfully  in  fear  of  ag¬ 
gression  at  the  expense  of  Germany,  and  sanction 
striking  only  because  they  fear  lest  they  them¬ 
selves  be  struck.  The  greatest  service  that  could 
be  rendered  to  peace  would  be  to  convince  Ger¬ 
many,  as  well  as  other  powers,  that  in  such  event 
we  would  do  all  we  could  on  behalf  of  the  power 
that  was  wronged.  Extremists  in  England, 
France,  and  Russia  talk  as  if  the  proper  outcome 
of  the  present  war  would  be  the  utter  dismember¬ 
ment  of  Germany  and  her  reduction  to  impotence 
such  as  that  which  followed  for  her  upon  the 
Thirty  Years’  War.  I  have  actually  received  let¬ 
ters  from  Frenchmen  and  Englishmen  upbraid¬ 
ing  me  for  what  they  regard  as  a  pro-German 
leaning  in  these  articles  I  have  written.  To  these 
well-meaning  persons  I  can  only  say  that  Amer¬ 
icans  who  remember  the  extreme  bitterness  felt 
by  Northerners  for  Southerners,  and  Southerners 
for  Northerners,  at  the  end  of  the  Civil  War,  are 


POSSE  COMITATUS  117 

saddened  but  in  no  wise  astonished  that  other 
peoples  should  show  a  like  bitterness.  I  can  only 
repeat  that  to  dismember  and  hopelessly  shatter 
Germany  would  be  a  frightful  calamity  for  man¬ 
kind,  precisely  as  the  dismemberment  and  shat¬ 
tering  of  the  British  Empire  or  of  the  French 

Republic  would  be.  It  is  right  that  the  United 

« 

States  should  regard  primarily  its  own  interests. 
But  I  believe  that  I  speak  for  a  considerable  num¬ 
ber  of  my  countrymen  when  I  say  that  we  ought 
not  solely  to  consider  our  own  interests.  Above 
all,  we  should  not  do  as  the  present  administra¬ 
tion  does ;  for  it  refuses  to  take  any  concrete  action 
in  favor  of  any  nation  which  is  wronged;  and  yet 
it  also  refuses  to  act  so  that  we  may  ourselves  be 
sufficient  for  our  own  protection. 

We  ought  not  to  trust  in  words  unbacked  by 
deeds.  We  should  be  able  to  defend  ourselves. 
We  should  also  be  ready  and  able  to  join  in  pre¬ 
venting  the  infliction  of  disaster  of  the  kind  of 
which  I  speak  upon  any  civilized  power,  great  or 
small,  whether  it  be  at  the  present  time  Belgium, 
or  at  some  future  day  Germany  or  England, 
Holland,  Sweden  or  Hungary,  Russia  or  Japan. 

So  much  for  questions  of  international  right, 
and  of  our  duty  to  others  in  international  affairs. 
Now  for  our  duty  to  ourselves. 

A  sincere  desire  to  act  well  toward  other  nations 
must  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  as  yet  the 


1 1 8 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


standard  of  international  morality  is  both  low 
and  irregular.  The  behavior  of  the  great  mili¬ 
tary  empires  of  the  Old  World,  in  reference  to 
their  treaty  obligations  and  their  moral  obliga¬ 
tions  toward  countries  such  as  Belgium,  Finland, 
and  Korea,  shows  that  it  would  be  utter  folly  for 
us  in  any  grave  crisis  to  trust  to  anything  save  our 
own  preparedness  and  resolution  for  our  safety. 
The  other  day  there  appeared  in  the  newspapers 
extracts  from  a  translation  of  a  report  made  by  an 
officer  of  the  Prussian  army  staff  outlining  the 
plan  of  operations  by  Germany  in  the  event  of 
war  with  America.  Great  surprise  was  ex¬ 
pressed  by  innocent  Americans  that  such  plans 
should  be  in  existence,  and  certain  gentlemen  who 
speak  for  Germany  denied  that  the  report  (which 
was  printed  and  openly  sold  in  Germany  in 
pamphlet  form)  was  “official.”  Neither  the  re¬ 
sentment  expressed  nor  yet  the  denials  were 
necessary.  One  feature  of  the  admirable  pre¬ 
paredness  in  which  Germany  and  Japan  stand 
so  far  above  all  other  nations,  and  especially 
above  our  own,  is  their  careful  consideration  of 
hostilities  with  all  possible  antagonists.  Bem- 
hardi’s  famous  books  treat  of  possible  war  with 
Austria,  and  possible  attack  by  Austria  upon  Ger¬ 
many,  although  the  prime  lessons  that  they  teach 
are  those  contained  in  the  possibility  of  war  as  it 
has  actually  occurred,  with  Germany  and  Austria 


POSSE  COMITATUS  119 

in  alliance.  This  does  not  indicate  German  hos¬ 
tility  to  Austria;  it  merely  indicates  German 
willingness  to  look  squarely  in  the  face  all  possible 
facts.  Of  course,  and  quite  properly,  the  German 
General  Staff  has  carefully  considered  the  question 
of  hostilities  with  America,  and,  of  course,  plans 
were  drawn  up  with  minute  care  and  prevision 
at  the  time  when  there  was  friction  between  the 
two  countries  over  Samoa,  at  the  time  when 
Admiral  Dietrich  clashed  with  Dewey  in  Manila 
Bay,  and  on  the  later  occasion  when  there  was 
friction  in  connection  with  Venezuela.  This  did 
not  represent  any  special  German  ill  will  toward 
America.  It  represented  the  common-sense — • 
albeit  somewhat  cold-blooded— consideration  of 
possibilities  by  Germany’s  rulers;  and  the  failure 
to  give  this  consideration  would  have  reflected 
severely  upon  these  rulers — although  I  do  not  re¬ 
gard  some  of  the  actions  proposed  as  proper  from 
the  standpoint  of  warfare  as  the  United  States  has 
practised  it.  To  become  angry  because  such  plans 
exist  would  be  childish.  To  fail  to  profit  by  ouj 
knowledge  that  they  certainly  do  exist  would 
however,  be  not  merely  childish  but  imbecile.  1 
have  myself  become  personally  cognizant  of  tho 
existence  of  such  plans  for  operations  against  us, 
and  of  the  larger  features  of  their  details,  in  two. 
cases,  affecting  two  different  nations. 

The  essential  feature  of  these  plans  was  (and 


120 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


doubtless  is)  the  seizure  of  some  of  our  great  coast 
cities  and  the  terrorization  of  these  cities  so  as  to 
make  them  give  enormous  ransoms;  ransoms  of 
such  size  that  our  own  country  would  be  crippled, 
whereas  our  foes  would  be  enabled  to  run  the  war 
against  us  with  a  handsome  profit  to  themselves. 
These  plans  are  based,  of  course,  upon  the  belief 
that  we  have  not  sufficient  foresight  and  intelli¬ 
gence  to  keep  our  navy  in  first-class  condition, 
and  upon  not  merely  the  belief  but  the  knowledge 
that  our  regular  army  is  so  small  and  our  utter 
unpreparedness  otherwise  so  great  that  on  land 
we  would  be  entirely  helpless  against  a  moderate¬ 
sized  expeditionary  force  belonging  to  any  first- 
class  military  power.  Foreign  military  and  naval 
observers  know  well  that  our  navy  has  been  used 
during  the  last  eighteen  months  in  connection  with 
the  Mexican  situation  in  such  manner  as  to  accom¬ 
plish  the  minimum  of  results  as  regards  Mexico, 
while  at  the  same  time  to  do  the  maximum  of 
damage  in  interrupting  the  manoeuvring  and  the 
gun  practice  of  our  fleets.  They  regard  Messrs. 
Wilson  and  Bryan  as  representative  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  people  in  their  entire  inability  to  under¬ 
stand  the  real  nature  of  the  forces  that  underlie 
international  relations  and  the  importance  of  pre¬ 
paredness.  They  are  entirely  cold-blooded  in  their 
views  of  us.  Foreign  rulers  may  despise  us  for 
our  supine  unpreparedness,  and  for  our  readiness 


POSSE  GOMITATUS 


121 


to  make  treaties,  taken  together  with  our  refusal 
to  fulfil  these  treaties  by  seeking  to  avert  wrong 
done  to  others.  But  their  contempt  will  not 
prevent  their  using  this  nation  as  arbiter  in  order 
to  bring  about  peace  if  to  do  so  suits  their  pur¬ 
poses;  and  if,  on  the  contrary,  one  or  the  other 
of  the  several  great  military  empires  becomes  the 
world  mistress  as  the  result  of  this  war,  that 
power  will  infringe  our  rights  whenever  and  to 
the  extent  that  it  deems  it  advantageous  to  do 
so,  and  will  make  war  upon  us  whenever  it  be¬ 
lieves  that  such  war  will  be  to  its  own  advantage. 

In  the  event  of  such  a  war  against  us  it  is  well 
to  remember  that  the  spiritless  and  selfish  type 
of  neutrality  which  we  have  observed  in  the 
present  war  will  be  remembered  by  all  other 
nations  on  whichever  side  they  have  been  en¬ 
gaged  in  this  contest,  and  will  give  each  of  them 
more  or  less  satisfaction  in  the  event  of  disaster 
befalling  us.  These  nations,  if  they  come  to  a 
deadlock  as  the  result  of  this  war,  will  not  be 
withheld  by  any  sentiment  of  indignation  against 
or  contempt  for  us  from  utilizing  the  services  of 
the  President  as  a  medium  for  bringing  about 
peace,  if  this  seems  the  most  convenient  method 
of  getting  peace.  But,  whether  they  do  this  or 
not,  they  will  retain  a  smouldering  ill  will  toward 
us,  one  and  all  of  them;  and  if  we  were  assailed 
it  would  be  utterly  quixotic,  utterly  foolish  of 


122 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


any  one  of  them  to  come  to  our  aid  no  matter 
what  wrongs  were  inflicted  upon  us.  It  would  be 
quite  impossible  for  any  power  to  treat  us  worse 
than  Belgium  has  been  treated  by  Germany  or 
to  attack  us  with  less  warrant  than  was  shown 
when  Belgium  was  attacked.  Bombs  have  been 
continually  dropped  by  the  Germans  in  the  city 
of  Paris  and  in  other  cities,  wrecking  private 
houses  and  killing  men,  women,  and  children  at 
a  time  when  there  was  no  pretense  that  any 
military  attacks  were  being  made  upon  the  cities, 
or  that  any  other  object  was  served  than  that 
of  terrorizing  the  civilian  population.  Cities  have 
been  destroyed  and  others  held  to  huge  ransom. 
All  these  practices  are  forbidden  by  the  Hague 
conventions.  Inasmuch  as  we  have  not  made  a 
single  protest  against  them  when  other  powers 
have  suffered,  it  would  be  both  ridiculous  and 
humiliating  for  us  to  make  even  the  slightest 
appeal  for  assistance  or  to  expect  any  assistance 
from  any  other  powers  if  ever  we  in  our  turn 
suffer  in  like  fashion.  It  would  be  purely  our 
affair.  We  would  have  no  right  to  expect  that 
other  powers  would  take  the  kind  of  action 
which  we  ourselves  have  refused  to  take.  It 
would  be  our  time  to  take  our  medicine,  and  it 
would  be  folly  and  cowardice  to  make  wry  faces 
over  it  or  to  expect  sympathy,  still  less  aid,  from 
outsiders.  As  I  have  already  stated,  my  own 


POSSE  COMITATUS 


123 


view  is  most  strongly  that,  if  we  are  assailed  in 
accordance  with  the  plans  of  foreign  powers 
above  mentioned,  it  would  be  our  business  posi¬ 
tively  to  refuse  to  allow  any  city  to  ransom  itself, 
and  sternly  to  accept  the  destruction  of  New 
York,  or  San  Francisco,  or  any  other  city  as  the 
alternative  of  such  ransom.  Our  duty  would  be 
to  accept  these  disasters  as  the  payment  right¬ 
fully  due  from  us  to  fate  for  our  folly  in  having 
listened  to  the  clamor  of  the  feeble  folk  among 
the  ultrapacificists,  and  in  having  indorsed  the 
unspeakable  silliness  of  the  policy  contained  in 
the  proposed  all-inclusive  arbitration  treaties  of 
Mr.  Taft  and  in  the  accomplished  all-inclusive 
arbitration  treaties  of  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Bryan. 

I  very  earnestly  hope  that  this  nation  will 
ultimately  adopt  a  dignified  and  self-respecting 
policy  in  international  affairs.  I  earnestly  hope 
that  ultimately  we  shall  live  up  to  every  inter¬ 
national  obligation  we  have  undertaken — exactly 
as  we  did  live  up  to  them  during  the  seven  and 
a  half  years  while  I  was  President.  I  earnestly 
hope  that  we  shall  ourselves  become  one  of  the 
joint  guarantors  of  world  peace  under  such  a 

plan  as  that  I  in  this  book  outline,  and  that  we 
shall  hold  ourselves  ready  and  willing  to  act  as  a 
member  of  the  international  posse  comitatus  to 
enforce  the  peace  of  righteousness  as  against  any 
offender  big  or  small.  This  would  mean  a  great 


124 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


practical  stride  toward  relief  from  the  burden  of 
excessive  military  preparation.  It  would  mean 
that  a  long  step  had  been  taken  toward  at  least 
minimizing  and  restricting  the  area  and  extent  of 
possible  warfare.  It  would  mean  that  all  liberty- 
loving  and  enlightened  peoples,  great  and  small, 
would  be  freed  from  the  haunting  nightmare  of 
terror  which  now  besets  them  when  they  think 
of  the  possible  conquest  of  their  land. 

Until  this  can  be  done  we  owe  it  to  ourselves  as 
a  nation  effectively  to  safeguard  ourselves  against 
all  likelihood  of  disaster  at  the  hands  of  a  foreign 
foe.  We  should  bring  our  navy  up  to  the  highest 
point  of  preparedness,  we  should  handle  it  purely 
from  military  considerations,  and  should  see  that 
the  training  was  never  intermitted.  We  should 
make  our  little  regular  army  larger  and  more 
effective  than  at  present.  We  should  provide  for 
it  an  adequate  reserve.  In  addition,  I  most  heart¬ 
ily  believe  that  we  should  return  to  the  ideal  held 
by  our  people  in  the  days  of  Washington  although 
never  lived  up  to  by  them.  We  should  follow 
the  example  of  such  typical  democracies  as  Swit¬ 
zerland  and  Australia  and  provide  and  require  mili¬ 
tary  training  for  all  our  young  men.  Switzerland’s 
efficient  army  has  unquestionably  been  the  chief 
reason  why  in  this  war  there  has  been  no  violation 
.of  her  neutrality.  Australia’s  system  of  military 
training  has  enabled  her  at  once  to  ship  large 


POSSE  COMITATUS  125 

bodies  of  first-rate  fighting  men  to  England’s  aid. 
Our  northern  neighbors  have  done  even  better 
than  Australia;  perhaps  special  mention  should 
be  made  of  St.  John,  Newfoundland,  which  has 
sent  to  the  front  one  in  five  of  her  adult  male 
population,  a  larger  percentage  than  any  other 
city  of  the  empire;  a  feat  probably  due  to  the 
fact  that  in  practically  all  her  schools  there  is 
good  military  training,  while  her  young  men  have 
much  practice  in  shooting  tournaments.  England 
at  the  moment  is  saved  from  the  fate  of  Belgium 
only  because  of  her  navy ;  and  the  small  size  of  her 
army,  her  lack  of  arms,  her  lack  of  previous  prepa¬ 
rations  doubtless  afford  the  chief  reason  why  this 
war  has  occurred  at  all  at  this  time.  There  would 
probably  have  been  no  war  if  England  had  fol¬ 
lowed  the  advice  so  often  urged  on  her  by  the 
lamented  Lord  Roberts,  for  in  that  case  she  would 
have  been  able  immediately  to  put  in  the  field 
an  army  as  large  and  effective  as,  for  instance, 
that  of  France. 

Training  of  our  young  men  in  field  manoeuvres 
and  in  marksmanship,  as  is  done  in  Switzerland, 
and  to  a  slightly  less  extent  in  Australia,  would 
be  of  immense  advantage  to  the  physique  and 
morale  of  our  whole  population.  It  would  not 
represent  any  withdrawal  of  our  population  from 
civil  pursuits,  such  as  occurs  among  the  great 
military  states  of  the  European  Continent.  In 


126 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


Switzerland,  for  instance,  the  ground  training  is 
given  in  the  schools,  and  the  young  man  after 
graduating  serves  only  some  four  months  with  the 
branch  of  the  army  to  which  he  is  attached,  and 
after  that  only  about  eight  days  a  year,  not  count¬ 
ing  his  rifle  practice.  All  serve  alike,  rich  and  poor, 
without  any  exceptions;  and  all  whom  I  have 
ever  met,  the  poor  even  more  than  the  rich,  are 
enthusiastic  over  the  beneficial  effects  of  the 
service  and  the  increase  in  self-reliance,  self-re¬ 
spect,  and  efficiency  which  it  has  brought.  The 
utter  worthlessness  of  make-believe  soldiers  who 
have  not  been  trained,  and  who  are  improvised  on 
the  Wilson-Bryan  theory,  will  be  evident  to  any 
one  who  cares  to  read  such  works  as  Professor 
Johnson’s  recent  volume  on  Bull  Run.  Our  people 
should  make  a  thorough  study  of  the  Swiss  and 
Australian  systems,  and  then  adapt  them  to  our 
own  use.  To  do  so  would  not  be  a  stride  toward 
war,  as  the  feeble  folk  among  the  ultrapacificists 
would  doubtless  maintain.  It  would  be  the  most 
effectual  possible  guarantee  that  peace  would 
dwell  within  our  borders;  and  it  would  also  make 
it  possible  for  us  not  only  to  insure  peace  for  our¬ 
selves,  but  to  have  our  words  carry  weight  if  we 
spoke  against  the  commission  of  wrong  and  in¬ 
justice  at  the  expense  of  others. 

But  we  must  always  remember  that  no  institu¬ 
tions  will  avail  unless  the  private  citizen  has  the 


12  7 


POSSE  COMITATUS 

right  spirit.  When  a  leading  congressman,  him¬ 
self  with  war  experience,  shows  conclusively  in 
open  speech  in  the  House  that  we  are  utterly  un¬ 
prepared  to  do  our  duty  to  ourselves  if  assailed, 
President  Wilson  answers  him  with  a  cheap 
sneer,  with  unworthy  levity;  and  the  repeated 
warnings  of  General  Wood  are  treated  with  the 
same  indifference.  Nevertheless,  I  do  not  believe 
that  this  attitude  on  the  part  of  our  public  ser¬ 
vants  really  represents  the  real  convictions  of  the 
average  American.  The  ideal  citizen  of  a  free 
state  must  have  in  him  the  stuff  which  in  time 
of  need  will  enable  him  to  show  himself  a  first- 
class  fighting  man  who  scorns  either  to  endure  or 
to  inflict  wrong.  American  society  is  sound  at 
core  and  this  means  that  at  bottom  we,  as  a 
people,  accept  as  the  basis  of  sound  morality  not 
slothful  ease  and  soft  selfishness  and  the  loud 
timidity  that  fears  every  species  of  risk  and 
hardship,  but  the  virile  strength  of  manliness 
which  clings  to  the  ideal  of  stem,  unflinching 
performance  of  duty,  and  which  follows  whither¬ 
soever  that  ideal  may  lead. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


SELF-DEFENSE  WITHOUT  MILITARISM 

THE  other  day  one  of  the  typical  ultra¬ 
pacificists  or  peace-at-any-price  men  put 
the  ultrapacificist  case  quite  clearly,  both 
in  a  statement  of  his  own  and  by  a  quotation  of 
what  he  called  the  “golden  words”  of  Mr.  Bryan 
at  Mohonk.  In  arguing  that  we  should  under  no 
conditions  fight  for  our  rights,  and  that  we  should 
make  no  preparation  whatever  to  secure  our¬ 
selves  against  wrong,  this  writer  pointed  out 
China  as  the  proper  model  for  America.  He  did 
this  on  the  ground  that  China,  which  did  not 
fight,  was  yet  “older”  than  Rome,  Greece,  and 
Germany,  which  had  fought,  and  that  its  example 
was  therefore  to  be  preferred. 

This,  of  course,  is  a  position  which  saves  the 
need  of  argument.  If  the  average  American  wants 
to  be  a  Chinaman,  if  China  represents  his  ideal, 
then  he  should  by  all  means  follow  the  advice  of 
pacificists  like  the  writer  in  question  and  be  a 
supporter  of  Mr.  Bryan.  If  any  man  seriously 
believes  that  China  has  played  a  nobler  and  more 

128 


SELF  DEFENSE 


129 


useful  part  in  the  world  than  Athens  and  Rome 
and  Germany,  then  he  is  quite  right  to  try  to 
Chinafy  the  United  States.  In  such  event  he 
must  of  course  believe  that  all  the  culture,  all  the 
literature,  all  the  art,  all  the  political  and  cultural 
liberty  and  social  well-being,  which  modem  Eu¬ 
rope  and  the  two  Americas  have  inherited  from 
Rome  and  Greece,  and  that  all  that  has  been  done 
by  Germany  from  the  days  of  Charlemagne  to 
the  present  time,  represent  mere  error  and  con¬ 
fusion.  He  must  believe  that  the  average  German 
or  Frenchman  or  Englishman  or  inhabitant  of 
North  or  South  America  occupies  a  lower  moral, 
intellectual,  and  physical  status  than  the  average 
coolie  who  with  his  fellows  composes  the  over¬ 
whelming  majority  of  the  Chinese  population. 
To  my  mind  such  a  proposition  is  unfit  for  debate 
outside  of  certain  types  of  asylum.  But  those 
who  sincerely  take  the  view  that  this  gentleman 
takes  are  unquestionably  right  in  copying  China 
in  every  detail,  and  nothing  that  I  can  say  will 
appeal  to  them. 

The  “golden  words”  of  Mr.  Bryan  were  as 
follows : 

I  believe  that  this  nation  could  stand  before  the  world 
to-day  and  tell  the  world  that  it  did  not  believe  in  war, 
that  it  did  not  believe  that  it  was  the  right  way  to  settle 
disputes,  that  it  had  no  disputes  which  it  was  not  willing 
to  submit  to  the  judgment  of  the  world.  If  this  nation 


130 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


did  that,  it  not  only  would  not  be  attacked  by  any  other 
nation  on  the  earth,  but  it  would  become  the  supreme 
power  in  the  world. 

Of  course,  it  is  to  be  assumed  that  Mr.  Bryan 
means  what  he  says.  If  he  does,  then  he  is  will¬ 
ing  to  submit  to  arbitration  the  question  whether 
the  Japanese  have  or  have  not  the  right  to  send 
unlimited  numbers  of  immigrants  to  this  shore. 
If  Mr.  Bryan  does  not  mean  this,  among  other 
specific  things,  then  the  “golden  words”  in  ques¬ 
tion  represent  merely  the  emotionalism  of  the  pro¬ 
fessional  orator.  Of  course  if  Mr.  Bryan  means 
what  he  says,  he  also  believes  that  we  should  not 
have  interfered  in  Cuba  and  that  Cuba  ought  now 
to  be  the  property  of  Spain.  He  also  believes 
that  we  ought  to  have  permitted  Colombia  to 
reconquer  and  deprive  of  their  independence  the 
people  of  Panama,  and  that  we  should  not  have 
built  the  Panama  Canal.  He  also  believes  that 
California  and  Texas  ought  now  to  be  parts  of 
Mexico,  enjoying  whatever  blessings  complete 
abstinence  from  foreign  war  has  secured  that 
country  during  the  last  three  years.  He  also  be¬ 
lieves  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
an  arbitrable  matter  and  that  the  United  States 
ought  now  to  be  a  dependency  of  Great  Britain. 
Unless  Mr.  Bryan  does  believe  all  of  these  things 
then  his  “golden  words”  represent  only  a  rhetor- 


SELF-DEFENSE 


131 

ical  flourish.  He  is  Secretary  of  State  and  the 
right-hand  man  of  President  Wilson,  and  President 
Wilson  is  completely  responsible  for  whatever  he 
says  and  for  the  things  he  does — or  rather  which 
he  leaves  undone. 

Now,  it  is  quite  useless  for  me  to  write  with 
any  view  to  convincing  gentlemen  like  Mr.  Bryan 
and  the  writer  in  question.  If  they  really  do 
represent  our  fellow  countrymen,  then  they  are 
right  in  holding  up  China  as  our  ideal;  not  the 
modem  China,  not  the  China  that  is  changing 
and  moving  forward,  but  old  China.  In  such 
event  Americans  ought  frankly  to  class  themselves 
with  the  Chinese.  That  is  where,  on  this  theory, 
they  belong.  If  this  is  so,  then  let  us  fervently 
pray  that  the  Japanese  or  Germans  or  some  other 
virile  people  that  does  not  deify  moral,  mental, 
and  physical  impotence,  may  speedily  come  to  rule 
over  us. 

I  am,  however,  writing  on  the  assumption  that 
Americans  are  still  on  the  whole  like  their  fore¬ 
fathers  who  followed  Washington,  and  like  their 
fathers  who  fought  in  the  armies  of  Grant  and 
Lee.  I  am  writing  on  the  assumption  that,  even 
though  temporarily  misled,  they  will  not  perma¬ 
nently  and  tamely  submit  to  oppression,  and  that 
they  will  ultimately  think  intelligently  as  to  what 
they  should  do  to  safeguard  themselves  against 
aggression.  I  abhor  unjust  war,  and  I  deplore 


132 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


that  the  need  even  for  just  war  should  ever  occur. 
I  believe  we  should  set  our  faces  like  flint  against 
any  policy  of  aggression  by  this  country  on  the 
rights  of  any  other  country.  But  I  believe  that 
we  should  look  facts  in  the  face.  I  believe  that 
it  is  unworthy  weakness  to  fear  to  face  the  truth. 
Moreover,  I  believe  that  we  should  have  in  us 
that  fibre  of  manhood  which  will  make  us  follow 
duty  whithersoever  it  may  lead.  Unquestionably, 
we  should  render  all  the  service  it  is  in  our  power 
to  render  to  righteousness.  To  do  this  we  must 
be  able  to  back  righteousness  with  force,  to  put 
might  back  of  right.  It  may  well  be  that  by  fol¬ 
lowing  out  this  theory  we  can  in  the  end  do  our 
part  in  conjunction  with  other  nations  of  the 
world  to  bring  about,  if  not — as  I  hope — a  world 
peace,  yet  at  least  an  important  minimizing  of  the 
chances  for  war  and  of  the  areas  of  possible  war. 
But  meanwhile  it  is  absolutely  our  duty  to  pre¬ 
pare  for  our  own  defense. 

This  country  needs  something  like  the  Swiss 
system  of  war  training  for  its  young  men.  Switzer¬ 
land  is  one  of  the  most  democratic  governments 
in  the  world,  and  it  has  given  its  young  men  such 
an  efficient  training  as  to  insure  entire  prepar¬ 
edness  for  war,  without  suffering  from  the  least 
touch  of  militarism.  Switzerland  is  at  peace  now 
primarily  because  all  the  great  military  nations 
that  surround  it  know  that  its  people  have  no 


SELF-DEFENSE 


133 


intention  of  making  aggression  on  anybody  and 
yet  that  they  are  thoroughly  prepared  to  hold 
their  own  and  are  resolute  to  fight  to  the  last 
against  any  invader  who  attempts  either  to  sub¬ 
jugate  their  territory  or  by  violating  its  neutrality 
to  make  it  a  battle-ground. 

A  bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  recently 
wrote  me  as  follows: 

How  lamentable  that  we  should  stand  idle,  making  no 
preparations  to  enforce  peace,  and  crying  “peace”  when 
there  is  none!  I  have  scant  sympathy  for  the  short¬ 
sightedness  of  those  who  decry  preparation  for  war  as  a 
means  of  preventing  it. 

The  manager  of  a  land  company  in  Alabama 
writes  me  urging  that  some  one  speak  for  reason¬ 
able  preparedness  on  the  part  of  the  nation.  He 
states  that  it  is  always  possible  that  we  shall  be 
engaged  in  hostilities  with  some  first-class  power, 
that  he  hopes  and  believes  that  war  will  never 
come,  but  adds: 

I  may  not  believe  that  my  home  will  bum  down  or 
that  I  am  going  to  die  within  the  period  of  my  expec¬ 
tancy,  but  nevertheless  I  carry  fire  and  life  insurance  to 
the  full  insurable  value  on  my  property  and  on  my  life 
to  the  extent  of  my  ability.  The  only  insurance  of  our 
liberties  as  a  people  is  full  preparation  for  a  defense  ade¬ 
quate  against  any  attack  and  made  in  time  to  fully  meet 
any  attack.  We  do  not  know  the  attack  is  coming;  but 


134 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


to  wait  until  it  does  come  will  be  too  late.  Our  present 
weakness  lies  in  the  wide-spread  opinion  among  our  people 
that  this  country  is  invincible  because  of  its  large  popu¬ 
lation  and  vast  resources.  This  I  believe  is  true  if,  and 
only  if,  we  use  these  resources  or  a  small  part  of  them  to 
protect  the  major  part,  and  if  we  train  at  least  a  part  of 
our  people  how  to  defend  the  nation.  Under  existing 
conditions  we  can  hardly  hope  to  have  an  effective  army 
in  the  field  in  less  time  than  eight  or  ten  months.  To-day 
not  one  per  cent  of  our  people  know  anything  about 
rifle  shooting. 

I  quote  these  two  out  of  many  letters,  because 
they  sum  up  the  general  feeling  of  men  of  vision. 
Both  of  my  correspondents  are  most  sincerely 
for  peace.  No  man  can  possibly  be  more  anxious 
for  peace  than  I  am.  I  ask  those  individuals  who 
think  of  me  as  a  firebrand  to  remember  that  dur¬ 
ing  the  seven  and  a  half  years  I  was  President  not 
a  shot  was  fired  at  any  soldier  of  a  hostile  nation 
by  any  American  soldier  or  sailor,  and  there  was 
not  so  much  as  a  threat  of  war.  Even  when  the 
state  of  Panama  threw  off  the  alien  yoke  of  Co¬ 
lombia  and  when  this  nation,  acting  as  was  its 
manifest  duty,  by  recognizing  Panama  as  an  in¬ 
dependent  state  stood  for  the  right  of  the  governed 
to  govern  themselves  on  the  Isthmus,  as  well  as 
for  justice  and  humanity,  there  was  not  a  shot 
fired  by  any  of  our  people  at  any  Colombian.  The 
blood  recently  shed  at  Vera  Cruz,  like  the  un¬ 
punished  wrongs  recently  committed  on  our  people 


SELF-DEFENSE 


135 


in  Mexico,  had  no  parallel  during  my  administra¬ 
tion.  When  I  left  the  presidency  there  was  not 
a  cloud  on  the  horizon — and  one  of  the  reasons 
why  there  was  not  a  cloud  on  the  horizon  was  that 
the  American  battle  fleet  had  just  returned  from 
its  sixteen  months’  trip  around  the  world,  a  trip 
such  as  no  other  battle  fleet  of  any  power  had 
ever  taken,  which  it  had  not  been  supposed  could 
be  taken,  and  which  exercised  a  greater  influence 
for  peace  than  all  the  peace  congresses  of  the  last 
fifty  years.  With  Lowell  I  most  emphatically  be¬ 
lieve  that  peace  is  not  a  gift  that  tarries  long  in 
the  hands  of  cowards ;  and  the  fool  and  the  weak¬ 
ling  are  no  improvement  on  the  coward. 

Nineteen  centuries  ago  in  the  greatest  of  all 
books  we  were  warned  that  whoso  loses  his  life 
for  righteousness  shall  save  it  and  that  he  who 
seeks  to  save  it  shall  lose  it.  The  ignoble  and 
abject  gospel  of  those  who  would  teach  us  that 
it  is  preferable  to  endure  disgrace  and  discredit 
than  to  run  any  risk  to  life  or  limb  would  defeat 
its  own  purpose;  for  that  kind  of  submission  to 
wrong-doing  merely  invites  further  wrong-doing, 
as  has  been  shown  a  thousand  times  in  history 
and  as  is  shown  by  the  case  of  China  in  our  own 
days.  Moreover,  our  people,  however  ill-prepared, 
would  never  consent  to  such  abject  submission; 
and  indeed  as  a  matter  of  fact  our  publicists  and 
public  men  and  our  newspapers,  instead  of  being 


136 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


too  humble  and  submissive,  are  only  too  apt  to 
indulge  in  very  offensive  talk  about  foreign  na¬ 
tions.  Of  all  the  nations  of  the  world  we  are  the 
one  that  combines  the  greatest  amount  of  wealth 
with  the  smallest  ability  to  defend  that  wealth. 
Surely  one  does  not  have  to  read  history  very 
much  or  ponder  over  philosophy  a  great  deal  in 
order  to  realize  the  truth  that  the  one  certain  way 
to  invite  disaster  is  to  be  opulent,  offensive,  and 
unarmed.  There  is  utter  inconsistency  between 
the  ideal  of  making  this  nation  the  foremost  com¬ 
mercial  power  in  the  world  and  of  disarmament 
in  the  face  of  an  armed  world.  There  is  utter  in¬ 
consistency  between  the  ideal  of  making  this 
nation  a  power  for  international  righteousness 
and  at  the  same  time  refusing  to  make  us  a  power 
efficient  in  anything  save  empty  treaties  and 
emptier  promises. 

I  do  not  believe  in  a  large  standing  army. 
Most  emphatically  I  do  not  believe  in  militarism. 
Most  emphatically  I  do  not  believe  in  any  policy 
of  aggression  by  us.  But  I  do  believe  that  no 
man  is  really  fit  to  be  the  free  citizen  of  a  free 
republic  unless  he  is  able  to  bear  arms  and  at 
need  to  serve  with  efficiency  in  the  efficient  army 
of  the  republic.  This  is  no  new  thing  with  me. 
For  years  I  have  believed  that  the  young  men  of 
the  country  should  know  how  to  use  a  rifle  and 
should  have  a  short  period  of  military  training 


SELF-DEFENSE 


137 


which,  while  not  taking  them  for  any  length  of 
time  from  civil  pursuits,  would  make  them 
quickly  capable  of  helping  defend  the  country  in 
case  of  need.  When  I  was  governor  of  New  York, 
acting  in  conjunction  with  the  administration  at 
Washington  under  President  McKinley,  I  secured 
the  sending  abroad  of  one  of  the  best  officers  in 
the  New  York  National  Guard,  Colonel  William 
Cary  Sanger,  to  study  the  Swiss  system.  As  Pres¬ 
ident  I  had  to  devote  my  attention  chiefly  to 
getting  the  navy  built  up.  But  surely  the  sight 
of  what  has  happened  abroad  ought  to  awaken 
our  people  to  the  need  of  action,  not  only  as  re¬ 
gards  our  navy  but  as  regards  our  land  forces  also. 

Australia  has  done  well  in  this  respect.  But 
Switzerland  has  worked  out  a  comprehensive 
scheme  with  practical  intelligence.  She  has  not 
only  solved  the  question  of  having  men  ready  to 
fight,  but  she  has  solved  the  question  of  having 
arms  to  give  these  men.  At  present  England  is  in 
more  difficulty  about  arms  than  about  men,  and 
some  of  her  people  when  sent  to  the  front  were 
armed  with  hunting  rifles.  Our  own  shortcom¬ 
ings  are  far  greater.  Indeed,  they  are  so  lamen¬ 
table  that  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  our  citizens 
as  a  whole  know  them.  To  equip  half  the  number 
of  men  whom  even  the  British  now  have  in  the 
field  would  tax  our  factories  to  the  limit.  In 
Switzerland,  during  the  last  two  or  three  years 


138 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


of  what  corresponds  to  our  high-school  work  the 
boy  is  thoroughly  grounded  in  the  rudiments  of 
military  training,  discipline,  and  marksmanship. 
When  he  graduates  he  is  put  for  some  four  to  six 
months  in  the  army  to  receive  exactly  the  training 
he  would  get  in  time  of  war.  After  that  he  serves 
eight  days  a  year  and  in  addition  often  joins 
with  his  fellows  in  practising  at  a  mark.  He 
keeps  his  rifle  and  accoutrements  in  his  home  and 
is  responsible  for  their  condition.  Efficiency  is 
the  watchword  of  Switzerland,  and  not  least  in 
its  army.  At  the  outbreak  of  this  terrible  war 
Switzerland  was  able  to  mobilize  her  forces  in 
the  comer  of  her  territory  between  France  and 
Germany  as  quickly  as  either  of  the  great  com¬ 
batants  could  theirs;  and  no  one  trespassed  upon 
her  soil. 

The  Swiss  training  does  not  to  any  appreciable 
extent  take  the  man  away  from  his  work.  But  it 
does  make  him  markedly  more  efficient  for  his 
work.  The  training  he  gets  and  his  short  service 
with  the  colors  render  him  appreciably  better 
able  to  do  whatever  his  job  in  life  is,  and,  in  ad¬ 
dition,  benefit  his  health  and  spirits.  The  service 
is  a  holiday,  and  a  holiday  of  the  best  because  of 
the  most  useful  type. 

There  is  no  reason  whatever  why  Americans 
should  be  unwilling  or  unable  to  do  what  Switzer¬ 
land  has  done.  We  are  a  far  wealthier  country 


SELF-DEFENSE 


139 


than  Switzerland  and  could  afford  without  the 
slightest  strain  the  very  trifling  expense  and  the 
trifling  consumption  of  time  rendered  necessary 
by  such  a  system.  It  has  really  nothing  in  com¬ 
mon  with  the  universal  service  in  the  great  con¬ 
script  armies  of  the  military  powers.  No  man 
would  be  really  taken  out  of  industry.  On  the 
contrary,  the  average  man  would  probably  be 
actually  benefited  so  far  as  doing  his  life-work 
is  concerned.  The  system  would  be  thoroughly 
democratic  in  its  workings.  No  man  would  be 
exempted  from  the  work  and  all  would  have  to 
perform  the  work  alike.  It  would  be  entirely 
possible  to  arrange  that  there  should  be  a  certain 
latitude  as  to  the  exact  year  when  the  four  or  six 
months’  service  was  given. 

Officers,  of  course,  would  need  a  longer  training 
than  the  men.  This  could  readily  be  furnished 
either  by  allowing  numbers  of  extra  students  to 
take  partial  or  short-term  courses  at  West  Point 
or  by  specifying  optional  courses  in  the  high 
schools,  the  graduates  of  these  special  courses 
being  tested  carefully  in  their  field-work  and  be¬ 
ing  required  to  give  extra  periods  of  service  and 
being  under  the  rigid  supervision  of  the  regular 
army.  There  could  also  be  opportunities  for  pro¬ 
motion  from  the  ranks  for  any  one  who  chose  to 
take  the  time  and  the  trouble  to  fit  himself. 

The  four  or  six  months’  service  with  the  colors 


140 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


would  be  for  the  most  part  in  the  open  field. 
The  drill  hall  and  the  parade-ground  do  not  teach 
more  than  five  per  cent  of  what  a  soldier  must 
actually  know.  Any  man  who  has  had  any  ex¬ 
perience  with  ordinary  organizations  of  the  Na¬ 
tional  Guard  when  taken  into  camp  knows  that 
at  first  only  a  very  limited  number  of  the  men 
have  any  idea  of  taking  care  of  themselves  and 
that  the  great  majority  suffer  much  from  dys¬ 
pepsia,  just  because  they  do  not  know  how  to 
take  care  of  themselves.  The  soldier  needs  to 
spend  some  months  in  actual  campaign  practice 
under  canvas  with  competent  instructors  before 
he  gets  to  know  his  duty.  If,  however,  he  has 
had  previous  training  in  the  schools  of  such  a  type 
as  that  given  in  Switzerland  and  then  has  this 
actual  practice,  he  remains  for  some  years  efficient 
with  no  more  training  than  eight  or  ten  days  a 
year. 

The  training  must  be  given  in  large  bodies.  It 
is  essential  that  men  shall  get  accustomed  to  the 
policing  and  sanitary  care  of  camps  in  which  there 
are  masses  of  soldiers.  Moreover,  officers  and 
especially  the  higher  officers  are  wholly  useless  in 
war  time  unless  they  are  accustomed  to  handle 
masses  of  men  in  co-operation  with  one  another. 

There  are  small  sections  of  our  population  out 
of  which  it  is  possible  to  improvise  soldiers  in  a 
short  time.  Men  who  are  accustomed  to  ride 


SELF-DEFENSE  141 

and  to  shoot  and  to  live  in  the  open  and  who  are 
hardy  and  enduring  and  by  nature  possess  the 
fighting  edge  already  know  most  of  what  it  is 
necessary  that  an  infantryman  or  cavalryman 
should  know,  and  they  can  be  taught  the  remain¬ 
der  in  a  very  short  time  by  good  officers.  Mor¬ 
gan’s  Virginia  Riflemen,  Andrew  Jackson’s  Tennes¬ 
seans,  Forrest’s  Southwestern  Cavalry  were  all  men 
of  this  kind;  but  even  such  men  are  of  real  use 
only  after  considerable  training  or  else  if  their 
leaders  are  bom  fighters  and  masters  of  men. 
Such  leaders  are  rare.  The  ordinary  dweller  in  civ¬ 
ilization  has  to  be  taught  to  shoot,  to  walk  (or  ride 
if  he  is  in  the  cavalry),  to  cook  for  himself,  to 
make  himself  comfortable  in  the  open,  and  to  take 
care  of  his  feet  and  his  health  generally.  Artil¬ 
lerymen  and  engineers  need  long  special  training. 

It  may  well  be  that  the  Swiss  on  an  average 
can  be  made  into  good  troops  quicker  than  our 
own  men;  but  most  assuredly  there  would  be 
numbers  of  Americans  who  would  not  be  behind 
the  Swiss  in  such  a  matter.  A  body  of  volunteers 
of  the  kind  I  am  describing  would  of  course  not 
be  as  good  as  a  body  of  regulars  of  the  same  size, 
but  they  would  be  immeasurably  better  than 
the  average  soldiers  produced  by  any  system  we 
now  have  or  ever  have  had  in  connection  with 
our  militia.  Our  regular  army  would  be  strength¬ 
ened  by  them  at  the  very  beginning  and  would  be 


142 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


set  free  in  its  entirety  for  immediate  aggressive 
action;  and  in  addition  a  levy  in  mass  of  the 
young  men  of  the  right  age  would  mean  that  two 
or  three  million  troops  were  put  into  the  field, 
who,  although  not  as  good  as  regulars,  would  at 
once  be  available  in  numbers  sufficient  to  over¬ 
whelm  any  expeditionary  force  which  it  would  be 
possible  for  any  military  power  to  send  to  our 
shores.  The  existence  of  such  a  force  would  ren¬ 
der  the  immediate  taking  of  cities  like  San  Fran¬ 
cisco,  New  York,  or  Boston  an  impossibility  and 
would  free  us  from  all  danger  from  sudden  raids 
and  make  it  impossible  even  for  an  army-corps  to 
land  with  any  prospect  of  success. 

Our  people  are  so  entirely  unused  to  things 
military  that  it  is  probably  difficult  for  the  aver¬ 
age  man  to  get  any  clear  idea  of  our  shortcomings. 
Unlike  what  is  true  in  the  military  nations  of  the 
Old  World,  here  the  ordinary  citizen  takes  no 
interest  in  the  working  of  our  War  Department 
in  time  of  peace.  No  President  gains  the  slightest 
credit  for  himself  by  paying  attention  to  it. 
Then  when  a  crisis  comes  and  the  War  Depart¬ 
ment  breaks  down,  instead  of  the  people  accept¬ 
ing  what  has  happened  with  humility  as  due  to 
their  own  fault  during  the  previous  two  or  three 
decades,  there  is  a  roar  of  wrath  against  the  un¬ 
fortunate  man  who  happens  to  be  in  office  at  the 
time.  There  was  such  a  roar  of  wrath  against 


SELF-DEFENSE 


143 


Secretary  Alger  in  the  Spanish  War.  Now,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  ninety  per  cent  of  our  short¬ 
comings  when  the  war  broke  out  with  Spain 
could  not  have  been  remedied  by  any  action  on 
the  part  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  They  were  due 
to  what  had  been  done  ever  since  the  close  of  the 
Civil  War. 

We  were  utterly  unprepared.  There  had  been 
no  real  manoeuvring  of  so  much  as  a  brigade 
and  very  rarely  had  any  of  our  generals  com¬ 
manded  even  a  good-sized  regiment  in  the  field. 
The  enlisted  men  and  the  junior  officers  of  the 
regular  army  were  good.  Most  of  the  officers 
above  the  rank  of  captain  were  nearly  worthless. 
There  were  striking  exceptions  of  course,  but, 
taking  the  average,  I  really  believe  that  it  would 
have  been  on  the  whole  to  the  advantage  of  our 
army  in  1898  if  all  the  regular  officers  above 
the  rank  of  captain  had  been  retired  and  if  all 
the  captains  who  were  unfit  to  be  placed  in  the 
higher  positions  had  also  been  retired.  The 
lieutenants  were  good.  The  lack  of  administra¬ 
tive  skill  was  even  more  marked  than  the  lack  of 
military  skill.  No  one  who  saw  the  congestion  of 
trains,  supplies,  animals,  and  men  at  Tampa  will 
ever  forget  the  impression  of  helpless  confusion 
that  it  gave  him.  The  volunteer  forces  included 
some  organizations  and  multitudes  of  individuals 
offering  first-class  material.  But,  as  a  whole,  the 


144 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


volunteer  army  would  have  been  utterly  helpless 
against  any  efficient  regular  force  at  the  outset  of 
the  1898  war,  probably  almost  as  inefficient  as 
were  the  two  armies  which  fought  one  another 
at  Bull  Run  in  1861.  Even  the  efficiency  of  the 
regular  army  itself  was  such  merely  by  comparison 
with  the  volunteers.  I  do  not  believe  that  any 
army  in  the  world  offered  finer  material  than  was 
offered  by  the  junior  officers  and  enlisted  men  of 
the  regular  army  which  disembarked  on  Cuban 
soil  in  June,  1898;  and  by  the  end  of  the  next 
two  weeks  probably  the  average  individual  in¬ 
fantry  or  cavalry  organization  therein  was  at  least 
as  good  as  the  average  organization  of  the  same 
size  in  an  Old-World  army.  But  taking  the  army 
as  a  whole  and  considering  its  management  from 
the  time  it  began  to  assemble  at  Tampa  until 
the  surrender  of  Santiago,  I  seriously  doubt  if  it 
was  as  efficient  as  a  really  good  European  or  Jap¬ 
anese  army  of  half  the  size.  Since  then  we  have 
made  considerable  progress.  Our  little  army  of 
occupation  that  went  to  Cuba  at  the  time  of  the 
revolution  in  Cuba  ten  years  ago  was  thoroughly 
well  handled  and  did  at  least  as  well  as  any  foreign 
force  of  the  same  size  could  have  done.  But  it 
did  not  include  ten  thousand  men,  that  is,  it  did 
not  include  as  many  men  as  the  smallest  military 
power  in  Europe  would  assemble  any  day  for 
manoeuvres. 


SELF-DEFENSE 


145 


This  is  no  new  thing  in  our  history.  If  only 
we  were  willing  to  learn  from  our  defeats  and 
failures  instead  of  paying  heed  purely  to  our  suc¬ 
cesses,  we  would  realize  that  what  I  have  above 
described  is  one  of  the  common  phases  of  our  his¬ 
tory.  In  the  War  of  1812,  at  the  outset  of  the 
struggle,  American  forces  were  repeatedly  beaten, 
as  at  Niagara  and  Bladensburg,  by  an  enemy  one 
half  or  one  quarter  the  strength  of  the  American 
army  engaged.  Yet  two  years  later  these  same 
American  troops  on  the  northern  frontier,  when 
trained  and  commanded  by  Brown,  Scott,  and 
Ripley,  proved  able  to  do  what  the  finest  troops 
of  Napoleon  were  unable  to  do,  that  is,  meet  the 
British  regulars  on  equal  terms  in  the  open;  and 
the  Tennessee  backwoodsmen  and  Louisiana 
volunteers,  when  mastered  and  controlled  by  the 
iron  will  and  warlike  genius  of  Andrew  Jackson, 
performed  at  New  Orleans  a  really  great  feat. 
During  the  year  1812  the  American  soldiers  on 
shore  suffered  shameful  and  discreditable  defeats, 
and  yet  their  own  brothers  at  sea  won  equally 
striking  victories,  and  this  because  the  men  on 
shore  were  utterly  unprepared  and  because  the 
men  at  sea  had  been  thoroughly  trained  and 
drilled  long  in  advance. 

Exactly  the  same  lessons  are  taught  by  the 
histories  of  other  nations.  When,  during  the 
Napoleonic  wars,  a  small  force  of  veteran  French 


146 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


soldiers  landed  in  Ireland  they  defeated  without 
an  effort  five  times  their  number  of  British  and 
Irish  troops  at  Castlebar.  Yet  the  men  whom 
they  thus  drove  in  wild  flight  were  the  own  brothers 
of  and  often  the  very  same  men  who  a  few  years 
later,  under  Wellington,  proved  an  overmatch  for 
the  flower  of  the  French  forces.  The  nation  that 
waits  until  the  crisis  is  upon  it  before  taking 
measures  for  its  owm  safety  pays  heavy  toll  in 
the  blood  of  its  best  and  its  bravest  and  in  bitter 
shame  and  humiliation.  Small  is  the  comfort  it 
can  then  take  from  the  memory  of  the  times 
when  the  noisy  and  feeble  folk  in  its  own  ranks 
cried  “Peace,  peace,”  without  taking  one  practi¬ 
cal  step  to  secure  peace. 

We  can  never  follow  out  a.  worthy  national 
policy,  we  can  never  be  of  benefit  to  others  or  to 
ourselves,  unless  we  keep  steadily  in  view  as  our 
ideal  that  of  the  just  man  armed,  the  man  who  is 
fearless,  self-reliant,  ready,  because  he  has  pre¬ 
pared  himself  for  possible  contingencies;  the  man 
who  is  scornful  alike  of  those  who  would  advise 
him  to  do  wrong  and  of  those  who  would  advise 
him  tamely  to  suffer  wrong.  The  great  war  now 
being  waged  in  Europe  and  the  fact  that  no  neu¬ 
tral  nation  has  ventured  to  make  even  the  small¬ 
est  effort  to  alleviate1  or  even  to  protest  against 

1  The  much  advertised  sending  of  food  and  supplies  to  Belgium  has 
been  of  most  benefit  to  the  German  conquerors  of  Belgium.  They 


SELF-DEFENSE 


147 


the  wrongs  that  have  been  done  show  with  lamen¬ 
table  clearness  that  all  the  peace  congresses  of  the 
past  fifteen  years  have  accomplished  precisely 
and  exactly  nothing  so  far  as  any  great  crisis  is 
concerned.  Fundamentally  this  is  because  they 
have  confined  themselves  to  mere  words,  seem¬ 
ingly  without  realizing  that  mere  words  are 
utterly  useless  unless  translated  into  deeds  and 
that  an  ounce  of  promise  which  is  accompanied  by 
provision  for  a  similar  ounce  of  effective  perform¬ 
ance  is  worth  at  least  a  ton  of  promise  as  to  which 
no  effective  method  of  performance  is  provided. 
Furthermore,  a  very  serious  blunder  has  been 
to  treat  peace  as  the  end  instead  of  righteousness 
as  the  end.  The  greatest  soldier-patriots  of  his¬ 
tory,  Timoleon,  John  Hamden,  Andreas  Hofer, 
Koerner,  the  great  patriot-statesman-soldiers  like 
Washington,  the  great  patriot-statesmen  like  Lin¬ 
coln  whose  achievements  for  good  depended  upon 
the  use  of  soldiers,  have  all  achieved  their  im¬ 
mortal  claim  to  the  gratitude  of  mankind  by  what 


have  taken  the  money  and  food  of  the  Belgians  and  permitted  the 
Belgians  to  be  supported  by  outsiders.  Of  course,  it  was  far  better 
to  send  them  food,  even  under  such  conditions,  than  to  let  them 
starve;  but  the  professional  pacificists  would  do  well  to  ponder  the 
fact  that  if  the  neutral  nations  had  been  willing  to  prevent  the  in¬ 
vasion  of  Belgium,  which  could  only  be  done  by  willingness  and 
ability  to  use  force,  they  would  by  this  act  of  “war”  have  prevented 
more  misery  and  suffering  to  innocent  men,  women,  and  children 
than  the  organized  charity  of  all  the  “peaceful”  nations  of  the  world 
can  now  remove. 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


148 

they  did  in  just  war.  To  condemn  war  in  terms 
which  include  the  wars  these  men  waged  or  took 
part  in  precisely  as  they  include  the  most  wicked 
and  unjust  wars  of  history  is  to  serve  the  devil 
and  not  God. 

Again,  these  peace  people  have  persistently  and 
resolutely  blinked  facts.  One  of  the  peace  con¬ 
gresses  sat  in  New  York  at  the  very  time  that 
the  feeling  in  California  about  the  Japanese  ques¬ 
tion  gravely  threatened  the  good  relations  be¬ 
tween  ourselves  and  the  great  empire  of  Japan. 
The  only  thing  which  at  the  moment  could  prac¬ 
tically  be  done  for  the  cause  of  peace  was  to 
secure  some  proper  solution  of  the  question  at 
issue  between  ourselves  and  Japan.  But  this  rep¬ 
resented  real  effort,  real  thought.  The  peace 
congress  paid  not  the  slightest  serious  attention 
to  the  matter  and  instead  devoted  itself  to  listen¬ 
ing  to  speeches  which  favored  the  abolition  of  the 
United  States  navy  and  even  in  one  case  the 
prohibiting  the  use  of  tin  soldiers  in  nurseries  be¬ 
cause  of  the  militaristic  effect  on  the  minds  of  the 
little  boys  and  girls  who  played  with  them ! 

Ex-President  Taft  has  recently  said  that  it  is 
hysterical  to  endeavor  to  prepare  against  war; 
and  he  at  the  same  time  explained  that  the  only 
real  possibility  of  war  was  to  be  found  “in  the 
wanton,  reckless,  wicked  willingness  on  the  part 
of  a  narrow  section  of  the  country  to  gratify  racial 


SELF-DEFENSE 


149 


prejudice  and  class  hatred  by  flagrant  breach  of 
treaty  right  in  the  form  of  state  law.”  This 
characterization  is,  of  course,  aimed  at  the  State 
of  California  for  its  action  toward  the  Japanese. 
If — which  may  Heaven  forfend — any  trouble 
comes  because  of  the  action  of  California  toward 
the  Japanese,  a  prime  factor  in  producing  it  will 
be  the  treaty  negotiated  four  years  ago  with 
Japan;  and  no  clearer  illustration  can  be  given  of 
the  mischief  that  comes  to  our  people  from  the 
habit  our  public  men  have  contracted  of  getting 
cheap  applause  for  themselves  by  making  treaties 
which  they  know  to  be  shams,  which  they  know 
cannot  be  observed.  The  result  of  such  action  is 
that  there  is  one  set  of  real  facts,  those  that 
actually  exist  and  must  be  reckoned  with,  and 
another  set  of  make-believe  facts  which  do  not 
exist  except  on  pieces  of  paper  or  in  after-dinner 
speeches,  which  are  known  to  be  false  but  which 
serve  to  deceive  well-meaning  pacificists.  Four 
years  ago  there  was  in  existence  a  long-standing 
treaty  with  Japan  under  which  we  reserved  the 
right  to  keep  out  Japanese  laborers.  Every  man 
of  any  knowledge  whatever  of  conditions  on  the 
Pacific  Slope,  and,  indeed,  generally  throughout 
this  country,  knew,  and  knows  now,  that  any  im¬ 
migration  in  mass  to  this  country  of  the  Japanese, 
whether  the  immigrants  be  industrial  laborers  or 
men  whose  labor  takes  the  form  of  agricultural 


150  THE  WORLD  WAR 

work  or  even  the  form  of  small  shopkeeping,  was 
and  is  absolutely  certain  to  produce  trouble  of 
the  most  dangerous  kind.  The  then  administra¬ 
tion  entered  on  a  course  of  conduct  as  regards 
Manchuria  which  not  only  deeply  offended  the 
Japanese  but  actually  achieved  the  result  of  unit¬ 
ing  the  Russians  and  Japanese  against  us.  To 
make  amends  for  this  serious  blunder  the  adminis¬ 
tration  committed  the  far  worse  blunder  of  en¬ 
deavoring  to  placate  Japanese  opinion  by  the 
negotiation  of  a  new  treaty  in  which  our  right  to 
exclude  Japanese  laborers,  that  is,  to  prevent 
Japanese  immigration  in  mass,  was  abandoned. 
The  extraordinary  and  lamentable  fact  in  the 
matter  was  that  the  California  senators  acquiesced 
in  the  treaty.  Apparently  they  took  the  view, 
which  so  many  of  our  public  men  do  take  and 
which  they  are  encouraged  to  take  by  the  un¬ 
wisdom  of  those  who  demand  impossible  treaties, 
that  they  were  perfectly  willing  to  please  some 
people  by  passing  the  treaty  because,  if  necessary, 
the  opponents  of  the  treaty  could  at  any  time  be 
placated  by  its  violation.  One  item  in  securing 
their  support  was  the  statement  by  the  then  ad¬ 
ministration  that  the  Japanese  authorities  had 
said  that  they  would  promise  under  a  “gentle¬ 
men’s  agreement”  to  keep  the  immigrants  out  if 
only  they  were  by  treaty  given  the  right  to  let 
them  in.  Under  the  preceding  treaty,  during 


SELF-DEFENSE  151 

my  administration,  the  Japanese  government  had 
made  and  had  in  good  faith  kept  such  an  agree¬ 
ment,  the  agreement  being  that  as  long  as  the 
Japanese  government  itself  kept  out  Japanese 
immigrants  and  thereby  relieved  us  of  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  passing  any  law  to  exclude  them,  no  such 
law  would  be  passed.  Apparently  the  next  ad¬ 
ministration  did  not  perceive  the  fathomless  dif¬ 
ference  between  retaining  the  power  to  enact  a 
law  which  was  not  enacted  as  long  as  no  necessity 
for  enacting  it  arose,  and  abandoning  the  power, 
surrendering  the  right,  and  trusting  that  the  neces¬ 
sity  to  exercise  it  would  not  arise. 

I  immensely  admire  and  respect  the  Japanese 
people.  I  prize  their  good-will.  I  am  proud  of 
my  personal  relations  with  some  of  their  leading 
men.  Fifty  years  ago  there  was  no  possible  com¬ 
munity  between  the  Japanese  and  ourselves. 
The  events  of  the  last  fifty  years  have  been  so 
extraordinary  that  now  Japanese  statesmen,  gen¬ 
erals,  artists,  writers,  scientific  men,  business 
men,  can  meet  our  corresponding  men  on  terms 
of  entire  equality.  I  am  fortunate  enough  to 
have  a  number  of  Japanese  friends.  I  value  their 
friendship.  They  and  I  meet  on  a  footing  of 
absolute  equality,  socially,  politically,  and  in 
every  other  way.  I  respect  and  regard  them  pre¬ 
cisely  as  in  the  case  of  my  German  and  Russian, 
French  and  English  friends.  But  there  is  no  use 


152 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


blinking  the  truth  because  it  is  unpleasant.  As  yet 
the  differences  between  the  Japanese  who  work 
with  their  hands  and  the  Americans  who  work 
with  their  hands  are  such  that  it  is  absolutely 
impossible  for  them,  when  brought  into  contact 
with  one  another  in  great  numbers,  to  get  on. 
Japan  would  not  permit  any  immigration  in  mass 
of  our  people  into  her  territory,  and  it  is  wholly 
inadvisable  that  there  should  be  such  immigra- 
gration  of  her  people  into  our  territory.  This 
is  not  because  either  side  is  inferior  to  the  other 
but  because  they  are  different.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  these  differences  are  sometimes  in  favor  of 
the  Japanese  and  sometimes  in  favor  of  the 
Americans.  But  they  are  so  marked  that  at  this 
time,  whatever  may  be  the  case  in  the  future, 
friction  and  trouble  are  certain  to  come  if  there 
is  any  immigration  in  mass  of  Japanese  into  this 
country,  exactly  as  friction  and  trouble  have 
actually  come  in  British  Columbia  from  this 
cause,  and  have  been  prevented  from  coming  in 
Australia  only  by  the  most  rigid  exclusion  laws. 
Under  these  conditions  the  way  to  avoid  trouble 
is  not  by  making  believe  that  things  which  are 
not  so  are  so  but  by  courteously  and  firmly 
facing  the  situation.  The  two  nations  should  be 
given  absolutely  reciprocal  treatment.  Students, 
statesmen,  publicists,  scientific  men,  all  travellers, 
whether  for  business  or  pleasure,  and  all  men 


SELF-DEFENSE 


153 


engaged  in  international  business,  whether  Japa¬ 
nese  or  American,  should  have  absolute  right  of 
entry  into  one  another’s  countries  and  should  be 
treated  with  the  highest  consideration  while 
therein,  but  no  settlement  in  mass  should  be  per¬ 
mitted  of  the  people  of  either  country  in  the  other 
country.  All  travelling  and  sojourning  by  the 
people  of  either  country  in  the  other  country 
should  be  encouraged,  but  there  should  be  no 
immigration  of  workers  to,  no  settlement  in,  either 
country  by  the  people  of  the  other.  I  advocate 
this  solution,  which  for  years  I  have  advocated, 
because  I  am  not  merely  a  friend  but  an  intense 
admirer  of  Japan,  because  I  am  most  anxious 
that  America  should  learn  from  Japan  the  great 
amount  that  Japan  can  teach  us  and  because  I 
wish  to  work  for  the  best  possible  feeling  between 
the  two  countries.  Each  country  has  interests 
in  the  Pacific  which  can  best  be  served  by  their 
cordial  co-operation  on  a  footing  of  frank  and 
friendly  equality;  and  in  eastern  Asiatic  waters 
the  interest  and  therefore  the  proper  dominance 
of  Japan  are  and  will  be  greater  than  those  of  any 
other  nation.  If  such  a  plan  as  that  above  ad¬ 
vocated  were  once  adopted  by  both  our  nations 
all  sources  of  friction  between  the  two  countries 
would  vanish  at  once.  Ultimately  I  have  no  ques¬ 
tion  that  all  restrictions  of  movement  from  one 
country  to  the  other  could  be  dispensed  with. 


154 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


But  to  attempt  to  dispense  with  them  in  our  day 
and  our  generation  will  fail;  and  even  worse  fail¬ 
ure  will  attend  the  attempt  to  make  believe  to 
dispense  with  them  while  not  doing  so. 

It  is  eminently  necessary  that  the  United  States 
should  in  good  faith  observe  its  treaties,  and  it  is 
therefore  eminently  necessary  not  to  pass  treaties 
which  it  is  absolutely  certain  will  not  be  obeyed, 
and  which  themselves  provoke  disobedience  to 
them.  The  height  of  folly,  of  course,  is  to  pass 
treaties  which  will  not  be  obeyed  and  the  disre¬ 
gard  of  which  may  cause  the  gravest  possible 
trouble,  even  war,  and  at  the  same  time  to  refuse 
to  prepare  for  war  and  to  pass  other  foolish  treaties 
calculated  to  lure  our  people  into  the  belief  that 
there  will  never  be  war. 

I  advocate  that  our  preparedness  take  such 
shape  as  to  fit  us  to  resist  aggression,  not  to  en¬ 
courage  us  in  aggression.  I  advocate  prepared¬ 
ness  that  will  enable  us  to  defend  our  own  shores 
and  to  defend  the  Panama  Canal  and  Hawaii 
and  Alaska,  and  prevent  the  seizure  of  territory 
at  the  expense  of  any  commonwealth  of  the 
western  hemisphere  by  any  military  power  of 
the  Old  World.  I  advocate  this  being  done  in  the 
most  democratic  manner  possible.  We  Americans 
do  not  realize  how  fundamentally  democratic  our 
army  really  is.  When  I  served  in  Cuba  it  was 
under  General  Sam  Young  and  alongside  of  Gen- 


SELF-DEFENSE 


155 


eral  Adna  Chaffee.  Both  had  entered  the  Amer¬ 
ican  army  as  enlisted  men  in  the  Civil  War. 
Later,  as  President,  I  made  both  of  them  in  suc¬ 
cession  lieutenant-generals  and  commanders  of 
the  army.  On  the  occasion  when  General  Chaffee 
was  to  appear  at  the  White  House  for  the  first 
time  as  lieutenant-general,  General  Young  sent 
him  his  own  starred  shoulder-straps  with  a  little 
note  saying  that  they  were  from  “Private  Young, 
’61,  to  Private  Chaffee,  ’61.”  Both  of  the  fine 
old  fellows  represented  the  best  type  of  citizen- 
soldier.  Each  was  simply  and  sincerely  devoted 
to  peace  and  justice.  Each  was  incapable  of 
advocating  our  doing  wrong  to  others.  Neither 
could  have  understood  willingness  on  the  part  of 
any  American  to  see  the  United  States  submit 
tamely  to  insult  or  injury.  Both  typified  the 
attitude  that  we  Americans  should  take  in  our 
dealings  with  foreign  countries. 


CHAPTER  IX 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY 


THE  course  of  the  present  administration  in 
foreign  affairs  has  now  and  then  combined 
officiously  offensive  action  toward  foreign 
powers  with  tame  submission  to  wrong-doing  by 
foreign  powers.  As  a  nation  we  have  refused  to 
do  our  duty  to  others  and  yet  we  have  at  times 
tamely  submitted  to  wrong  at  the  hands  of  others. 
This  has  been  notably  true  of  our  conduct  in 
Mexico;  and  we  have  come  perilously  near  such 
conduct  in  the  case  of  Japan.  It  is  also  true  of 
our  activities  as  regards  the  European  war.  We 
failed  to  act  in  accordance  with  our  obligations 
as  a  signatory  power  to  the  Hague  treaties.  In 
addition  to  the  capital  crime  committed  against 
Belgium  we  have  seen  outrage  after  outrage  per¬ 
petrated  in  violation  of  the  Hague  conventions, 
and  yet  the  administration  has  never  ventured 
so  much  as  a  protest.  It  has  even  at  times,  and 
with  wavering  and  vacillation,  adopted  policies 
unjust  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  sets  of  com¬ 
batants.  But  it  has  immediately  abandoned 

these  policies  when  the  combatants  in  violent  and 

156 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY  157 


improper  fashion  overrode  them;  and  it  has  sub¬ 
mitted  with  such  tame  servility  to  whatever  the 
warring  nations  have  dictated  that  in  effect  we 
see,  as  Theodore  Woolsey,  the  expert  on  interna¬ 
tional  law,  has  pointed  out,  the  American  govern¬ 
ment  protecting  belligerent  interests  abroad  at 
the  expense  of  neutral  interests  both  at  home  and 
abroad.  Not  since  the  Napoleonic  wars  have 
belligerents  acted  with  such  high-handed  disre¬ 
gard  of  the  rights  of  neutrals.  Germany  was  the 
first  and  greatest  offender;  and  when  we  failed 
to  protest  in  her  case  the  administration  perhaps 
felt  ashamed  to  protest,  felt  that  it  was  estopped 
from  protesting,  in  other  cases.  England  in  its 
turn  has  violated  our  neutrality  rights,  and  while 
exercising  both  force  and  ingenuity  in  making 
this  violation  effective  has  protested  as  if  she 
herself  were  the  injured  party.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  England  and  France  should  note  that  in 
view  of  their  command  of  the  seas  our  war  trade 
is  of  such  value  to  them  that  certain  congressmen, 
whose  interest  in  Germany  surpasses  their  in¬ 
terest  in  the  United  States,  have  sought  by  law 
totally  to  prohibit  it.  This  proposed — and  thor¬ 
oughly  improper — action  is  a  sufficient  answer  to 
the  charges  of  the  Allies,  and  should  remind  them 
how  ill  they  requite  the  service  rendered  by  our 
merchants  when  they  seek  to  block  all  our  inter¬ 
course  with  other  nations.  They,  however,  are 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


158 

only  to  be  blamed  for  short-sightedness;  there 
is  no  reason  why  they  should  pay  heed  to  American 
interests.  But  the  administration  should  represent 
American  interests;  it  should  see  that  while  we 
perform  our  duties  as  neutrals  we  should  be  pro¬ 
tected  in  our  rights  as  neutrals;  and  one  of  these 
rights  is  the  trade  in  contraband.  To  prohibit 
this  is  to  take  part  in  the  war  for  the  benefit  of 
one  belligerent  at  the  expense  of  another  and  to 
our  own  cost. 

Of  course  it  would  be  an  ignoble  action  on 
our  part  after  having  conspicuously  failed  to  pro¬ 
test  against  the  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality  to 
show  ourselves  overeager  to  protest  against  com¬ 
paratively  insignificant  violations  of  our  own 
neutral  rights.  But  wre  should  never  have  put 
ourselves  in  such  a  position  as  to  make  insistence 
on  our  own  rights  seem  disregard  for  the  rights  of 
others.  The  proper  course  for  us  to  pursue  was, 
on  the  one  hand,  scrupulously  to  see  that  we  did 
not  so  act  as  to  injure  any  contending  nation, 
unless  required  to  do  so  in  the  name  of  morality 
and  of  our  solemn  treaty  obligations,  and  also 
fearlessly  to  act  on  behalf  of  other  nations  which 
were  wronged,  as  required  by  these  treaty  obli¬ 
gations;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  with  courteous 
firmness  to  warn  any  nation  which,  for  instance, 
seized  or  searched  our  ships  against  the  accepted 
rules  of  international  conduct  that  this  we  could 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY  159 


not  permit  and  that  such  a  course  should  not  be 
persevered  in  by  any  nation  which  desired  our 
good-will.  I  believe  I  speak  for  at  least  a  con¬ 
siderable  portion  of  our  people  when  I  say  that  we 
wish  to  make  it  evident  that  we  feel  sincere  good¬ 
will  toward  all  nations;  that  any  action  we  take 
against  any  nation  is  taken  with  the  greatest  re¬ 
luctance  and  only  because  the  wrong-doing  of 
that  nation  imposes  a  distinct,  although  painful, 
duty  upon  us ;  and  yet  that  we  do  not  intend  our¬ 
selves  to  submit  to  wrong-doing  from  any  nation. 

Until  an  efficient  world  league  for  peace  is  in 
more  than  mere  process  of  formation  the  United 
States  must  depend  upon  itself  for  protection 
where  its  vital  interests  are  concerned.  All  the 
youth  of  the  nation  should  be  trained  in  warlike 
exercises  and  in  the  use  of  arms — as  well  as  in  the 
indispensable  virtues  of  courage,  self-restraint,  and 
endurance — so  as  to  be  fit  for  national  defense. 
But  the  right  arm  of  the  nation  must  be  its  navy. 
Our  navy  is  our  most  efficient  peacemaker.  In 
order  to  use  the  navy  effectively  we  should  clearly 
define  to  ourselves  the  policy  we  intend  to  follow 
and  the  limits  over  which  we  expect  our  power  to 
extend.  Our  own  coasts,  Alaska,  Hawaii,  and  the 
Panama  Canal  and  its  approaches  should  repre¬ 
sent  the  sphere  in  which  we  should  expect  to  be 
able,  single-handed,  to  meet  and  master  any  op¬ 
ponent  from  overseas. 


160  THE  WORLD  WAR 

I  exclude  the  Philippines.  This  is  because  I 
feel  that  the  present  administration  has  definitely 
committed  us  to  a  course  of  action  which  will 
make  the  early  and  complete  severance  of  the 
Philippines  from  us  not  merely  desirable  but 
necessary.  I  have  never  felt  that  the  Philip¬ 
pines  were  of  any  special  use  to  us.  But  I  have 
felt  that  we  had  a  great  task  to  perform  there 
and  that  a  great  nation  is  benefited  by  doing  a 
great  task.  It  was  our  bounden  duty  to  work 
primarily  for  the  interests  of  the  Filipinos;  but 
it  was  also  our  bounden  duty,  inasmuch  as  the 
entire  responsibility  lay  upon  us,  to  consult  our 
own  judgment  and  not  theirs  in  finally  deciding 
what  was  to  be  done.  It  was  our  duty  to  govern 
the  islands  or  to  get  out  of  the  islands.  It  was 
most  certainly  not  our  duty  to  take  the  respon¬ 
sibility  of  staying  in  the  islands  without  governing 
them.  Still  less  was  it — or  is  it — our  duty  to 
enter  into  joint  arrangements  with  other  powers 
about  the  islands;  arrangements  of  confused  re¬ 
sponsibility  and  divided  power  of  the  kind  sure 
to  cause  mischief.  I  had  hoped  that  we  would 
continue  to  govern  the  islands  until  we  were 
certain  that  they  were  able  to  govern  themselves 
in  such  fashion  as  to  do  justice  to  other  nations 
and  to  repel  injustice  committed  on  them  by 
other  nations.  To  substitute  for  such  govern¬ 
ment  by  ourselves  either  a  government  by  the 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY  161 


Filipinos  with  us  guaranteeing  them  against  out¬ 
siders,  or  a  joint  guarantee  between  us  and  out¬ 
siders,  would  be  folly.  It  is  eminently  desirable 
to  guarantee  the  neutrality  of  small  civilized 
nations  which  have  a  high  social  and  cultural 
status  and  which  are  so  advanced  that  they  do 
not  fall  into  disorder  or  commit  wrong-doing  on 
others.  But  it  is  eminently  undesirable  to  guar¬ 
antee  the  neutrality  or  sovereignty  of  an  inherently 
weak  nation  which  is  impotent  to  preserve  order 
at  home,  to  repel  assaults  from  abroad,  or  to  re¬ 
frain  from  doing  wrong  to  outsiders.  It  is  even 
more  undesirable  to  give  such  a  guarantee  with 
no  intention  of  making  it  really  effective.  That 
this  is  precisely  what  the  present  administration 
would  be  delighted  to  do  has  been  shown  by  its 
refusal  to  live  up  to  its  Hague  promises  at  the 
very  time  that  it  was  making  similar  new  inter¬ 
national  promises  by  the  batch.  To  enter  into  a 
joint  guarantee  of  neutrality  which  in  emergencies 
can  only  be  rendered  effective  by  force  of  arms 
is  to  incur  a  serious  responsibility  which  ought  to 
be  undertaken  in  a  serious  spirit.  To  enter  into 
it  with  no  intention  of  using  force,  or  of  preparing 
force,  in  order  at  need  to  make  it  effective,  repre¬ 
sents  the  kind  of  silliness  which  is  worse  than 
wickedness. 

Above  all,  we  should  keep  our  promises.  The 
present  administration  was  elected  on  the  out- 


1 62 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


right  pledge  of  giving  the  Filipinos  independence. 
Apparently  its  course  in  the  Philippines  has  pro¬ 
ceeded  upon  the  theory  that  the  Filipinos  are  now 
fit  to  govern  themselves.  Whatever  may  be  our 
personal  and  individual  beliefs  in  this  matter,  we 
ought  not  as  a  nation  to  break  faith  or  even  to 
seem  to  break  faith.  I  hope  therefore  that  the 
Filipinos  will  be  given  their  independence  at  an 
early  date  and  without  any  guarantee  from  us 
which  might  in  any  way  hamper  our  future  action 
or  commit  us  to  staying  on  the  Asiatic  coast.  I 
do  not  believe  we  should  keep  any  foothold  what¬ 
ever  in  the  Philippines.  Any  kind  of  position  by 
us  in  the  Philippines  merely  results  in  making 
them  our  heel  of  Achilles  if  we  are  attacked  by  a 
foreign  power.  They  can  be  of  no  compensating 
benefit  to  us.  If  we  were  to  retain  complete  con¬ 
trol  over  them  and  to  continue  the  course  of  ac¬ 
tion  which  in  the  past  sixteen  years  has  resulted 
in  such  immeasurable  benefit  for  them,  then  I 
should  feel  that  it  was  our  duty  to  stay  and  work 
for  them  in  spite  of  the  expense  incurred  by  us 
and  the  risk  we  thereby  ran.  But  inasmuch  as 
we  have  now  promised  to  leave  them  and  as  we 
are  now  abandoning  our  power  to  work  efficiently 
for  and  in  them,  I  do  not  feel  that  we  are  war¬ 
ranted  in  staying  in  the  islands  in  an  equivocal 
position,  thereby  incurring  great  risk  to  ourselves 
without  conferring  any  real  compensating  advan- 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY  163 


tage,  of  a  kind  which  we  are  bound  to  take  into 
account,  on  the  Filipinos  themselves.  If  the 
Filipinos  are  entitled  to  independence  then  we  are 
entitled  to  be  freed  from  all  the  responsibility  and 
risk  which  our  presence  in  the  islands  entails 
upon  us. 

The  great  nations  of  southernmost  South  Amer¬ 
ica,  Brazil,  the  Argentine,  and  Chile  are  now  so 
far  advanced  in  stability  and  power  that  there  is 
no  longer  any  need  of  applying  the  Monroe  Doc¬ 
trine  as  far  as  they  are  concerned;  and  this  also 
relieves  us  as  regards  Uruguay  and  Paraguay 
the  former  of  which  is  well  advanced  and  neither 
of  which  has  any  interests  with  which  we  need 
particularly  concern  ourselves.  As  regards  all 
these  powers,  therefore,  we  now  have  no  duty  save 
that  doubtless  if  they  got  into  difficulties  and  de¬ 
sired  our  aid  we  would  gladly  extend  it,  just  as, 
for  instance,  we  would  to  Australia  and  Canada. 
But  we  can  now  proceed  on  the  assumption  that 
they  are  able  to  help  themselves  and  that  any 
help  we  should  be  required  to  give  would  be  given 
by  us  as  an  auxiliary  rather  than  as  a  principal. 

Our  naval  problem,  therefore,  is  primarily  to 
provide  for  the  protection  of  our  own  coasts  and 
for  the  protection  and  policing  of  Hawaii,  Alaska, 
and  the  Panama  Canal  and  its  approaches.  This 
offers  a  definite  problem  which  should  be  solved 
by  our  naval  men.  It  is  for  them,  having  in  view 


164 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


the  lessons  taught  by  this  war,  to  say  what  is  the 
exact  type  of  fleet  we  require,  the  number  and 
kind  of  submarines,  of  destroyers,  of  mines,  and  of 
air-ships  to  be  used  against  hostile  fleets,  in  ad¬ 
dition  to  the  cruisers  and  great  fighting  craft 
which  must  remain  the  backbone  of  the  navy. 
Civilians  may  be  competent  to  pass  on  the  merits 
of  the  plans  suggested  by  the  naval  men,  but  it 
is  the  naval  men  themselves  who  must  make  and 
submit  the  plans  in  detail.  Lay  opinion,  how¬ 
ever,  should  keep  certain  elementary  facts  steadily 
in  mind. 

The  navy  must  primarily  be  used  for  offensive 
purposes.  Forts,  not  the  navy,  are  to  be  used 
for  defense.  The  only  permanently  efficient  type 
of  defensive  is  the  offensive.  A  portion,  and  a 
very  important  portion,  of  our  naval  strength 
must  be  used  with  our  own  coast  ordinarily  as  a 
base,  its  striking  radius  being  only  a  few  score 
miles,  or  a  couple  of  hundred  at  the  outside. 
The  events  of  this  war  have  shown  that  sub¬ 
marines  can  play  a  tremendous  part.  We  should 
develop  our  force  of  submarines  and  train  the 
officers  and  crews  who  have  charge  of  them  to 
the  highest  pitch  of  efficiency — for  they  will  be 
useless  in  time  of  war  unless  those  aboard  them 
have  been  trained  in  time  of  peace.  These  sub¬ 
marines,  when  used  in  connection  with  destroy¬ 
ers  and  with  air-ships,  can  undoubtedly  serve  to 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY  165 


minimize  the  danger  of  successful  attack  on  our 
own  shores.  But  the  prime  lesson  of  the  war,  as 
regards  the  navy,  is  that  the  nation  with  a  power¬ 
ful  seagoing  navy,  although  it  may  suffer  much 
annoyance  and  loss,  yet  is  able  on  the  whole  to 
take  the  offensive  and  do  great  damage  to  a  nation 
with  a  less  powerful  navy.  Great  Britain’s  naval 
superiority  over  Germany  has  enabled  her  com¬ 
pletely  to  paralyze  all  Germany’s  sea  commerce 
and  to  prevent  goods  from  entering  her  ports. 
What  is  far  more  important,  it  has  enabled  the 
British  to  land  two  or  three  hundred  thousand 
men  to  aid  the  French,  and  has  enabled  Canada  and 
Australia  to  send  a  hundred  thousand  men  from 
the  opposite  ends  of  the  earth  to  Great  Britain. 
If  Germany  had  had  the  more  powerful  navy 
England  would  now  have  suffered  the  fate  of 
Belgium. 

The  capital  work  done  by  the  German  cruis¬ 
ers  in  the  Atlantic,  the  Pacific,  and  the  Indian 
Oceans  shows  how  much  can  be  accomplished  in 
the  way  of  hurting  and  damaging  an  enemy  by 
even  the  weaker  power  if  it  possesses  fine  ships, 
well  handled,  able  to  operate  thousands  of  miles 
from  their  own  base.  We  must  not  fail  to  recog¬ 
nize  this.  Neither  must  we  fail  heartily  and  fully 
to  recognize  the  capital  importance  of  submarines 
as  well  as  air-ships,  torpedo-boat  destroyers,  and 
mines,  as  proved  by  the  events  of  the  last  three 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


1 66 

months.  But  nothing  that  has  yet  occurred  war¬ 
rants  us  in  feeling  that  we  can  afford  to  ease  up 
in  our  programme  of  building  tattle-ships  and 
cruisers,  especially  the  former.  The  German  sub¬ 
marines  have  done  wonderfully  in  this  war;  their 
cruisers  have  done  gallantly.  But  so  far  as  Great 
Britain  is  concerned  the  vital  and  essential  fea¬ 
ture  has  been  the  fact  that  her  great  battle  fleet 
has  kept  the  German  fleet  immured  in  its  own  home 
ports,  has  protected  Britain  from  invasion,  and 
has  enabled  her  land  strength  to  be  used  to  its 
utmost  capacity  beside  the  armies  of  France  and 
Belgium.  If  the  men  who  for  years  have  clam¬ 
ored  against  Britain’s  being  prepared  had  had 
their  way,  if  Britain  during  the  last  quarter  of  a 
century  had  failed  to  continue  the  upbuilding  of 
her  navy,  if  the  English  statesmen  corresponding 
to  President  Wilson  and  Mr.  Bryan  had  seen  their 
ideas  triumph,  England  would  now  be  off  the  map 
as  a  great  power  and  the  British  Empire  would 
have  dissolved,  while  London,  Liverpool,  and 
Birmingham  would  be  in  the  condition  of  Antwerp 
and  Brussels. 

The  efficiency  of  the  German  personnel  at  sea 
has  been  no  less  remarkable  than  the  efficiency 
of  the  German  personnel  on  land.  This  is  due 
partly  to  the  spirit  of  the  nation  and  partly  to 
what  is  itself  a  consequence  of  that  spirit,  the 
careful  training  of  the  navy  during  peace  under 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY  167 


the  conditions  of  actual  service.  When,  early  in 
1909,  our  battle  fleet  returned  from  its  sixteen 
months’  voyage  around  the  world  there  was  no 
navy  in  the  world  which,  size  for  size,  ship  for 
ship,  and  squadron  for  squadron,  stood  at  a  higher 
pitch  of  efficiency.  We  blind  ourselves  to  the 
truth  if  we  believe  that  the  same  is  true  now. 
During  the  last  twenty  months,  ever  since  Sec¬ 
retary  Meyer  left  the  Navy  Department,  there 
has  been  in  our  navy  a  great  falling  off  relatively 
to  other  nations.  It  was  quite  impossible  to 
avoid  this  while  our  national  affairs  were  handled 
as  they  have  recently  been  handled.  The  Presi¬ 
dent  who  intrusts  the  Departments  of  State  and 
the  Navy  to  gentlemen  like  Messrs.  Bryan  and 
Daniels  deliberately  invites  disaster,  in  the  event 
of  serious  complicatious  with  a  formidable  foreign 
opponent.  On  the  whole,  there  is  no  class  of  our 
citizens,  big  or  small,  who  so  emphatically  de¬ 
serve  well  of  the  country  as  the  officers  and  the 
enlisted  men  of  the  army  and  navy.  No  navy  in 
the  world  has  such  fine  stuff  out  of  which  to  make 
man-of-war’s  men.  But  they  must  be  heartily 
backed  up,  heartily  supported,  and  sedulously 
trained.  They  must  be  treated  well,  and,  above 
all,  they  must  be  treated  so  as  to  encourage  the 
best  among  them  by  sharply  discriminating 
against  the  worst.  The  utmost  possible  efficiency 
should  be  demanded  of  them.  They  are  emphat- 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


1 68 

ically  and  in  every  sense  of  the  word  men;  and 
real  men  resent  with  impatient  contempt  a  policy 
under  which  less  than  their  best  is  demanded. 
The  finest  material  is  utterly  worthless  without 
the  best  personnel.  In  such  a  highly  specialized 
service  as  the  navy  constant  training  of  a  purely 
military  type  is  an  absolute  necessity.  At  pres¬ 
ent  our  navy  is  lamentably  short  in  many  differ¬ 
ent  material  directions.  There  is  actually  but  one 
torpedo  for  each  torpedo  tube.  It  seems  incredible 
that  such  can  be  the  case;  yet  it  is  the  case.  We 
are  many  thousands  of  men  short  in  our  en¬ 
listments.  We  are  lamentably  short  in  certain 
types  of  vessel.  There  is  grave  doubt  as  to  the 
efficiency  of  many  of  our  submarines  and  destroy¬ 
ers.  But  the  shortcomings  in  our  training  are 
even  more  lamentable.  To  keep  the  navy  cruis¬ 
ing  near  Vera  Cruz  and  in  Mexican  waters, 
without  manoeuvring,  invites  rapid  deteriora¬ 
tion.  For  nearly  two  years  there  has  been  no 
fleet  manoeuvring;  and  this  fact  by  itself  prob¬ 
ably  means  a  twenty -five  per  cent  loss  of  efficiency. 
During  the  same  periods  most  of  the  ships  have 
not  even  had  division  gun  practice.  Not  only 
should  our  navy  be  as  large  as  our  position  and 
interest  demand  but  it  should  be  kept  continu¬ 
ally  at  the  highest  point  of  efficiency  and  should 
never  be  used  save  for  its  own  appropriate  mili¬ 
tary  purposes.  Of  this  elementary  fact  the  pres- 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY  169 


ent  administration  seems  to  be  completely  igno¬ 
rant. 

President  Wilson  and  Secretary  Daniels  assert 
that  our  navy  is  in  efficient  shape.  Admiral 
Fiske’s  testimony  is  conclusive  to  the  contrary, 
although  it  was  very  cautiously  given,  as  is 
but  natural  when  a  naval  officer,  if  he  tells  the 
whole  truth,  must  state  what  is  unpleasant  for 
his  superiors  to  hear.  Other  naval  officers  have 
pointed  out  our  deficiencies,  and  the  newspapers 
state  that  some  of  them  have  been  reprimanded 
for  so  doing.  But  there  is  no  need  for  their  testi¬ 
mony.  There  is  one  admitted  fact  which  is  ab¬ 
solutely  conclusive  in  the  matter.  There  has  been 
no  fleet  manoeuvring  during  the  past  twenty-two 
months.  In  spite  of  fleet  manoeuvring  the  navy 
may  be  unprepared.  But  it  is  an  absolute  cer¬ 
tainty  that  without  fleet  manoeuvring  it  cannot 
possibly  be  prepared.  In  the  unimportant  do¬ 
main  of  sport  there  is  not  a  man  who  goes  to  see 
the  annual  football  game  between  Harvard  and 
Yale  who  would  not  promptly  cancel  his  ticket  if 
either  university  should  propose  to  put  into  the 
field  a  team  which,  no  matter  how  good  the  players 
were  individually,  had  not  been  practised  as  a 
team  during  the  preceding  sixty  days.  If  in  such 
event  the  president  of  either  university  or  the 
coach  of  the  team  should  announce  that  in  spite 
of  never  having  had  any  team  practice  the  team 


170 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


was  nevertheless  in  first-class  condition,  there  is 
literally  no  intelligent  follower  of  the  game  who 
would  regard  the  utterance  as  serious.  Why 
should  President  Wilson  and  Secretary  Daniels 
expect  the  American  public  to  show  less  intelli¬ 
gence  as  regards  the  vital  matter  of  our  navy 
than  they  do  as  regards  a  mere  sport,  a  mere 
play  ?  For  twenty-two  months  there  has  been 
no  fleet  manoeuvring.  Since  in  the  daily  press, 
early  in  November,  I,  with  emphasis,  called  atten¬ 
tion  to  this  fact  Mr.  Daniels  has  announced  that 
shortly  manoeuvring  will  take  place ;  and  of  course 
the  failure  to  manoeuvre  for  nearly  two  years 
has  been  due  less  to  Mr.  Daniels  than  to  Presi¬ 
dent  Wilson’s  futile  and  mischievous  Mexican 
policy  and  his  entire  ignorance  of  the  needs  of 
the  navy.  I  am  glad  that  the  administration 
has  tardily  waked  up  to  the  necessity  of  taking 
some  steps  to  make  the  navy  efficient,  and  if  the 
President  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  bring 
forth  fruits  meet  for.  repentance,  I  will  most 
heartily  acknowledge  the  fact — just  as  it  has  given 
me  the  utmost  pleasure  to  praise  and  support 
President  Wilson’s  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Gar¬ 
rison.  But  misstatements  as  to  actual  conditions 
make  but  a  poor  preparation  for  the  work  of 
remedying  these  conditions,  and  President  Wilson 
and  Secretary  Daniels  try  to  conceal  from  the 
people  our  ominous  naval  shortcomings.  The 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY  171 


shortcomings  are  far-reaching,  alike  in  material, 
organization,  and  practical  training.  The  navy 
is  absolutely  unprepared;  its  efficiency  has  been 
terribly  reduced  under  and  because  of  the  action 
of  President  Wilson  and  Secretary  Daniels.  Let 
them  realize  this  fact  and  do  all  they  can  to 
remedy  the  wrong  they  have  committed.  Let 
Congress  realize  its  own  shortcomings.  Far- 
reaching  and  thoroughgoing  treatment,  continued 
for  a  period  of  at  least  two  and  in  all  probabil¬ 
ity  three  years,  is  needed  if  the  navy  is  to  be 
placed  on  an  equality,  unit  for  unit,  no  less 
than  in  the  mass,  with  the  navies  of  England, 
Germany,  and  Japan.  In  the  present  war  the 
deeds  of  the  Emden,  of  the  German  submarines, 
of  Von  Spee’s  squadron,  have  shown  not  merely 
efficiency  but  heroism;  and  the  navies  of  Great 
Britain  and  Japan  have  been  handled  in  masterly 
manner.  Have  the  countrymen  of  Farragut,  of 
Cushing,  Buchanan,  Winslow,  and  Semmes,  of 
Decatur,  Hull,  Perry,  and  MacDonough,  lost  their 
address  and  courage,  and  are  they  willing  to  sink 
below  the  standard  set  by  their  forefathers  ? 

It  has  been  said  that  the  United  States  never 
learns  by  experience  but  only  by  disaster.  Such 
method  of  education  may  at  times  prove  costly. 
The  slothful  or  short-sighted  citizens  who  are 
now  misled  by  the  cries  of  the  ultrapacificists 
would  do  well  to  remember  events  connected  with 


17  2 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


the  outbreak  of  the  war  with  Spain.  I  was  then 
Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Navy.  At  one  bound 
our  people  passed  from  a  condition  of  smug  con¬ 
fidence  that  war  never  could  occur  (a  smug  con¬ 
fidence  just  as  great  as  any  we  feel  at  present) 
to  a  condition  of  utterly  unreasoning  panic  over 
what  might  be  done  to  us  by  a  very  weak  an¬ 
tagonist.  One  governor  of  a  seaboard  State  an¬ 
nounced  that  none  of  the  National  Guard  regi¬ 
ments  would  be  allowed  to  respond  to  the  call  of 
the  President  because  they  would  be  needed  to 
prevent  a  Spanish  invasion  of  that  State — the 
Spaniards  being  about  as  likely  to  make  such 
an  invasion  as  we  were  to  invade  Timbuctoo  or 
Turkestan.  One  congressman  besought  me  to 
send  a  battle-ship  to  protect  Jekyll  Island,  off  the 
coast  of  Georgia.  Another  congressman  asked 
me  to  send  a  battle-ship  to  protect  a  summer 
colony  which  centred  around  a  large  Atlantic- 
coast  hotel  in  Connecticut.  In  my  own  neigh¬ 
borhood  on  Long  Island  clauses  were  gravely  in¬ 
serted  into  the  leases  of  property  to  the  effect 
that  if  the  Spaniards  destroyed  the  property  the 
leases  should  terminate.  Chambers  of  commerce, 
boards  of  trade,  municipal  authorities,  leading 
business  men,  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the 
other,  hysterically  demanded,  each  of  them,  that 
a  ship  should  be  stationed  to  defend  some  par¬ 
ticular  locality;  the  theory  being  that  our  navy 


OUR  PEACEMAKER,  THE  NAVY  173 


should  be  strung  along  both  seacoasts,  each  ship 
by  itself,  in  a  purely  defensive  attitude — thereby 
making  certain  that  even  the  Spanish  navy  could 
pick  them  all  up  in  detail.  One  railway  president 
came  to  protest  to  me  against  the  choice  of  Tampa 
as  a  point  of  embarkation  for  our  troops,  on  the 
ground  that  his  railway  was  entitled  to  its  share 
of  the  profit  of  transporting  troops  and  munitions 
of  war  and  that  his  railway  went  to  New  Orleans. 
The  very  senators  and  congressmen  who  had  done 
everything  in  their  power  to  prevent  the  building 
up  and  the  efficient  training  of  the  navy  screamed 
and  shrieked  loudest  to  have  the  navy  diverted 
from  its  proper  purpose  and  used  to  protect  un¬ 
important  seaports.  Surely  our  congressmen  and, 
above  all,  our  people  need  to  learn  that  in  time  of 
crisis  peace  treaties  are  worthless,  and  the  ultra¬ 
pacificists  of  both  sexes  merely  a  burden  on  and  a 
detriment  to  the  country  as  a  whole ;  that  the  only 
permanently  useful  defensive  is  the  offensive,  and 
that  the  navy  is  properly  the  offensive  weapon  of 
the  nation. 

The  navy  of  the  United  States  is  the  right 
arm  of  the  United  States  and  is  emphatically  the 
peacemaker.  Woe  to  our  country  if  we  permit 
that  right  arm  to  become  palsied  or  even  to  be¬ 
come  flabby  and  inefficient ! 


CHAPTER  X 

PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR 


MILITARY  preparedness  meets  two  needs. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  partial  insur¬ 
ance  against  war.  In  the  next  place,  it  is 
a  partial  guarantee  that  if  war  comes  the  country 
will  certainly  escape  dishonor  and  will  probably 
escape  material  loss. 

The  question  of  preparedness  cannot  be  con¬ 
sidered  at  all  until  we  get  certain  things  clearly  in 
our  minds.  Right  thinking,  wholesome  thinking, 
is  essential  as  a  preliminary  to  sound  national 
action.  Until  our  people  understand  the  folly  of 
certain  of  the  arguments  advanced  against  the 
action  this  nation  needs,  it  is,  of  course,  impossible 
to  expect  them  to  take  such  action. 

The  first  thing  to  understand  is  the  fact  that 
preparedness  for  war  does  not  always  insure 
peace  but  that  it  very  greatly  increases  the  chances 
of  securing  peace.  Foolish  people  point  out  na¬ 
tions  which,  in  spite  of  preparedness  for  war, 
have  seen  war  come  upon  them,  and  then  exclaim 
that  preparedness  against  war  is  of  no  use.  Such 
an  argument  is  precisely  like  saying  that  the  ex- 

174 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  175 


istence  of  destructive  fires  in  great  cities  shows 
that  there  is  no  use  in  having  a  fire  depart¬ 
ment.  A  fire  department,  which  means  prepared¬ 
ness  against  fire,  does  not  prevent  occasional 
destructive  fires,  but  it  does  greatly  diminish  and 
may  completely  minimize  the  chances  for  whole¬ 
sale  destruction  by  fire.  Nations  that  are  pre¬ 
pared  for  war  occasionally  suffer  from  it;  but  if 
they  are  unprepared  for  it  they  suffer  far  more 
often  and  far  more  radically. 

Fifty  years  ago  China,  Korea,  and  Japan  were 
in  substantially  the  same  stage  of  culture  and 
civilization.  Japan,  whose  statesmen  had  vision 
and  whose  people  had  the  fighting  edge,  began  a 
course  of  military  preparedness,  and  the  other  two 
nations  (one  of  them  in  natural  resources  immea¬ 
surably  superior  to  Japan)  remained  unprepared. 
In  consequence,  Japan  has  immensely  increased 
her  power  and  standing  and  is  wholly  free  from 
all  danger  of  military  invasion.  Korea  on  the 
contrary,  having  first  been  dominated  by  Russia 
has  now  been  conquered  by  Japan.  China  has 
been  partially  dismembered ;  one  half  of  her  terri¬ 
tories  are  now  subject  to  the  dominion  of  foreign 
nations,  which  have  time  and  again  waged  war 
between  themselves  on  these  territories,  and  her 
remaining  territory  is  kept  by  her  purely  because 
these  foreign  nations  are  jealous  of  one  another. 

In  1870  France  was  overthrown  and  suffered 


176 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


far  the  most  damaging  and  disastrous  defeat 
she  had  suffered  since  the  days  of  Joan  of  Arc — 
because  she  was  not  prepared.  In  the  present 
war  she  has  suffered  terribly,  but  she  is  beyond 
all  comparison  better  off  than  she  was  in  1870, 
because  she  has  been  prepared.  Poor  Belgium,  in 
spite  of  being  prepared,  was  almost  destroyed, 
because  great  neutral  nations—1 -the  United  States 
being  the  chief  offender — have  not  yet  reached  the 
standard  of  international  morality  and  of  willing¬ 
ness  to  fight  for  righteousness  which  must  be 
attained  before  they  can  guarantee  small,  well- 
behaved,  civilized  nations  against  cruel  disaster. 
England,  because  she  was  prepared  as  far  as  her 
navy  is  concerned,  has  been  able  to  avoid  Belgium’s 
fate;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  if  she  had  been  as 
prepared  with  her  army  as  France,  she  would 
probably  have  been  able  to  avert  the  war  and,  if 
this  could  not  have  been  done,  would  at  any  rate 
have  been  able  to  save  both  France  and  Belgium 
from  invasion. 

In  recent  years  Rumania,  Bulgaria,  and  Servia 
have  at  times  suffered  terribly,  and  in  some 
cases  have  suffered  disaster,  in  spite  of  being 
prepared  for  war;  but  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina 
are  under  alien  rule  at  this  moment  because 
they  could  no  more  protect  themselves  against 
Austria  than  they  could  against  Turkey.  While 
Greece  was  unprepared  she  was  able  to  accomplish 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  1 77 


nothing,  and  she  encountered  disaster.  As  soon 
as  she  was  prepared,  she  benefited  immensely. 

Switzerland,  at  the  time  of  the  Napoleonic  wars, 
was  wholly  unprepared  for  war.  In  spite  of  her 
mountains,  her  neighbors  overran  her  at  will. 
Great  battles  were  fought  on  her  soil,  including  one 
great  battle  between  the  French  and  the  Russians ; 
but  the  Swiss  took  no  part  in  these  battles.  Their 
territory  was  practically  annexed  to  the  French 
Republic,  and  they  were  domineered  over  first  by 
the  Emperor  Napoleon  and  then  by  his  enemies. 
It  was  a  bitter  lesson,  but  the  Swiss  learned  it. 
Since  then  they  have  gradually  prepared  for  war 
as  no  other  small  state  of  Europe  has  done,  and 
it  is  in  consequence  of  this  preparedness  that  none 
of  the  combatants  has  violated  Swiss  territory  in 
the  present  struggle. 

The  briefest  examination  of  the  facts  shows  that 
unpreparedness  for  war  tends  to  lead  to  immea¬ 
surable  disaster,  and  that  preparedness,  while  it 
does  not  certainly  avert  war  any  more  than  the 
fire  department  of  a  city  certainly  averts  fire,  yet 
tends  very  strongly  to  guarantee  the  nation  against 
war  and  to  secure  success  in  war  if  it  should  un¬ 
happily  arise. 

Another  argument  advanced  against  prepared¬ 
ness  for  war  is  that  such  preparedness  incites  war. 
This,  again,  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  facts. 
Unquestionably  certain  nations  have  at  times  pre- 


178 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


pared  for  war  with  a  view  to  foreign  conquest. 
But  the  rule  has  been  that  unpreparedness  for  war 
does  not  have  any  real  effect  in  securing  peace, 
although  it  is  always  apt  to  make  war  disastrous, 
and  that  preparedness  for  war  generally  goes  hand 
in  hand  with  an  increased  caution  in  going  to  war. 

Striking  examples  of  these  truths  are  furnished 
by  the  history  of  the  Spanish-American  states. 
For  nearly  three  quarters  of  a  century  after  these 
states  won  their  independence  their  history  was 
little  else  than  a  succession  of  bloody  revolutions 
and  of  wars  among  themselves  as  well  as  with  out¬ 
siders,  while  during  the  same  period  there  was  little 
or  nothing  done  in  the  way  of  effective  military  pre¬ 
paredness  by  one  of  them.  During  the  last  twenty 
or  thirty  years,  however,  certain  of  them,  notably 
Argentina  and  Chile,  have  prospered  and  become 
stable.  Their  stability  has  been  partly  caused  by, 
and  partly  accompanied  by,  a  great  increase  in 
military  preparedness.  During  this  period  Argen¬ 
tina  and  Chile  have  known  peace  as  they  never 
knew  it  before,  and  as  the  other  Spanish-American 
countries  have  not  known  it  either  before  or  since, 
and  at  the  same  time  their  military  efficiency  has 
enormously  increased. 

Proportionately,  Argentina  and  Chile  are  in 
military  strength  beyond  all  comparison  more 
efficient  than  the  United  States;  and  if  our 
navy  is  permitted  to  deteriorate  as  it  has  been  de- 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  179 


teriorating  for  nearly  two  years,  the  same  state¬ 
ment  can  soon  be  made,  although  with  more 
qualification,  of  their  naval  strength.  Prepared¬ 
ness  for  war  has  made  them  far  less  liable  to  have 
war.  It  has  made  them  less  and  not  more  ag¬ 
gressive.  It  has  also  made  them  for  the  first  time 
efficient  potential  factors  in  maintaining  the  Mon¬ 
roe  Doctrine  as  coguarantors,  on  a  footing  of 
complete  equality  with  the  United  States.  The 
Monroe  Doctrine,  conceived  not  merely  as  a  mea¬ 
sure  of  foreign  policy  vital  to  the  welfare  of  the 
United  States,  but  even  more  as  the  proper  joint 
foreign  policy  of  all  American  nations,  is  by  far 
the  most  efficient  guarantee  against  war  that  can 
be  offered  the  western  hemisphere.  By  whatever 
name  it  is  called,  it  is  absolutely  indispensable 
in  order  to  keep  this  hemisphere  mistress  of  its 
own  destinies,  able  to  prevent  any  part  of  it 
from  falling  under  the  dominion  of  any  Old  World 
power,  and  able  absolutely  to  control  in  its  own 
interest  all  colonization  on  and  immigration  to 
our  shores  from  either  Europe  or  Asia. 

The  bloodiest  and  most  destructive  war  in 
Spanish- American  history,  that  waged  by  Brazil, 
Argentina,  and  Uruguay  against  Paraguay,  was 
waged  when  all  the  nations  were  entirely  unpre¬ 
pared  for  war,  especially  the  three  victorious 
nations.  During  the  last  two  or  three  decades 
Mexico,  the  Central  American  states,  Colombia, 


i8o 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


and  Venezuela  have  been  entirely  unprepared  for 
war,  as  compared  with  Chile  and  Argentina.  Yet, 
whereas  Chile  and  Argentina  have  been  at  peace, 
the  other  states  mentioned  have  been  engaged  in 
war  after  war  of  the  most  bloody  and  destructive 
character.  Entire  lack  of  preparedness  for  war 
has  gone  hand  in  hand  with  war  of  the  worst  type 
and  with  all  the  worst  sufferings  that  war  can 
bring. 

The  lessons  taught  by  Spanish-America  are 
paralleled  elsewhere.  When  Greece  was  entirely 
unprepared  for  war  she  nevertheless  went  to 
war  with  Turkey,  exactly  as  she  did  when  she 
was  prepared;  the  only  difference  was  that  in 
the  one  case  she  suffered  disaster  and  in  the  other 
she  did  not.  The  war  between  Italy  and  Turkey 
was  due  wholly  to  the  fact  that  Turkey  was  not 
prepared — that  she  had  no  navy.  The  fact  that 
in  1848  Prussia  was  entirely  unprepared,  and 
moreover  had  just  been  engaged  in  a  revolution 
heartily  approved  by  all  the  ultrapacificists  and 
professional  humanitarians,  did  not  prevent  her 
from  entering  on  a  war  with  Denmark.  It  merely 
prevented  the  war  from  being  successful. 

Utter  and  complete  lack  of  preparation  on  our 
part  did  not  prevent  our  entering  into  war  with 
Great  Britain  in  1812  and  with  Mexico  in  1848. 
It  merely  exposed  us  to  humiliation  and  disaster 
in  the  former  war ;  in  the  latter,  Mexico  was  even 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  181 


worse  off  as  regards  preparation  than  we  were. 
As  for  civil  war,  of  course  military  unpreparedness 
has  not  only  never  prevented  it  but,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  seems  usually  to  have  been  one  of  the 
inciting  causes. 

The  fact  that  unpreparedness  does  not  mean 
peace  ought  to  be  patent  to  every  American  who 
will  think  of  what  has  occurred  in  this  country 
during  the  last  seventeen  years.  In  1898  we 
were  entirely  unprepared  for  war.  No  big  nation, 
save  and  except  our  opponent,  Spain,  was  more 
utterly  unprepared  than  we  were  at  that  time,  nor 
more  utterly  unfit  for  military  operations.  This 
did  not,  however,  mean  that  peace  was  secured  for 
a  single  additional  hour.  Our  army  and  navy  had 
been  neglected  for  thirty-three  years.  This  was 
due  largely  to  the  attitude  of  the  spiritual  forebears 
of  those  eminent  clergymen,  earnest  social  workers, 
and  professionally  humanitarian  and  peace-loving 
editors,  publicists,  writers  for  syndicates,  speakers 
for  peace  congresses,  pacificist  college  presidents, 
and  the  like  who  have  recently  come  forward  to 
protest  against  any  inquiry  into  the  military  con¬ 
dition  of  this  nation,  on  the  ground  that  to  supply 
our  ships  and  forts  with  sufficient  ammunition 
and  to  fill  up  the  depleted  ranks  of  the  army  and 
navy,  and  in  other  ways  to  prepare  against  war, 
will  tend  to  interfere  with  peace.  In  1898  the 
gentlemen  of  this  sort  had  had  their  way  for 


1 82  THE  WORLD  WAR 


thirty-three  years.  Our  army  and  navy  had  been 
grossly  neglected.  But  the  unpreparedness  due 
to  this  neglect  had  not  the  slightest  effect  of 
any  kind  in  preventing  the  war.  The  only  ef¬ 
fect  it  had  was  to  cause  the  unnecessary  and 
useless  loss  of  thousands  of  lives  in  the  war. 
Hundreds  of  young  men  perished  in  the  Philip¬ 
pine  trenches  because,  while  the  soldiers  of  Agui- 
naldo  had  modem  rifles  with  smokeless  powder, 
our  troops  had  only  the  old  black-powder  Spring- 
field.  Hundreds  more,  nay  thousands,  died  or 
had  their  health  impaired  for  life  in  fever  camps 
here  in  our  own  country  and  in  the  Philippines 
and  Cuba,  and  suffered  on  transports,  because  we 
were  entirely  unprepared  for  war,  and  therefore 
no  one  knew  how  to  take  care  of  our  men.  The 
lives  of  these  brave  young  volunteers  were  the 
price  that  this  country  paid  for  the  past  action 
of  men  like  the  clergymen,  college  presidents, 
editors,  and  humanitarians  in  question — none  of 
whom,  by  the  way,  risked  their  own  lives.  They 
were  also  the  price  that  this  country  paid  for  hav¬ 
ing  had  in  previous  cabinets  just  such  incompe¬ 
tents  as  in  time  of  peace  Presidents  so  often,  for 
political  reasons,  put  into  American  cabinets — just 
such  incompetents  as  President  Wilson  has  put 
into  the  Departments  of  State  and  of  the  Navy. 

Now  and  then  the  ultrapacificists  point  out  the 
fact  that  war  is  bad  because  the  best  men  go  to  the 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  183 


front  and  the  worst  stay  at  home.  There  is  a  cer¬ 
tain  truth  in  this.  I  do  not  believe  that  we  ought 
to  permit  pacificists  to  stay  at  home  and  escape  all 
risk,  while  their  braver  and  more  patriotic  fellow 
countrymen  fight  for  the  national  well-being.  It 
is  for  this  reason  that  I  wish  that  we  would  pro¬ 
vide  for  universal  military  training  for  our  young 
men,  and  in  the  event  of  serious  war  make  all 
men  do  their  part  instead  of  letting  the  whole 
burden  fall  upon  the  gallant  souls  who  volunteer. 
But  as  there  is  small  likelihood  of  any  such  course 
being  followed  in  the  immediate  future,  I  at 
least  hope  that  we  will  so  prepare  ourselves  in 
time  of  peace  as  to  make  our  navy  and  army 
thoroughly  efficient ;  and  also  to  enable  us  in  time 
of  war  to  handle  our  volunteers  in  such  shape 
that  the  loss  among  them  shall  be  due  to  the 
enemy’s  bullets  instead  of,  as  is  now  the  case, 
predominantly  to  preventable  sickness  which  we 
do  not  prevent.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  ultra¬ 
pacificists  to  the  fact  that  in  the  last  half  cen¬ 
tury  all  the  losses  among  our  men  caused  by  ‘ '  mili¬ 
tarism,”  as  they  call  it,  that  is,  by  the  arms  of  an 
enemy  in  consequence  of  our  going  to  war,  have 
been  far  less  than  the  loss  caused  among  these 
same  soldiers  by  applied  pacificism,  that  is,  by  our 
government  having  yielded  to  the  wishes  of  the 
pacificists  and  declined  in  advance  to  make  any 
preparations  for  war.  The  professional  peace 


184 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


people  have  benefited  the  foes  and  ill-wishers  of 
their  country;  but  it  is  probably  the  literal  fact 
to  say  that  in  the  actual  deed,  by  the  obstacles 
they  have  thrown  in  the  way  of  making  adequate 
preparation  in  advance,  they  have  caused  more 
loss  of  life  among  American  soldiers,  fighting  for 
the  honor  of  the  American  flag,  during  the  fifty 
years  since  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  than  has 
been  caused  by  the  foes  whom  we  have  fought 
during  that  period.1 

But  the  most  striking  instance  of  the  utter 
failure  of  unpreparedness  to  stop  war  has  been 
shown  by  President  Wilson  himself.  President 
Wilson  has  made  himself  the  great  official  cham¬ 
pion  of  unpreparedness  in  military  and  naval 
matters.  His  words  and  his  actions  about  foreign 
war  have  their  nearest  parallel  in  the  words  and 
the  actions  of  President  Buchanan  about  civil  war; 
and  in  each  case  there  has  been  the  same  use  of 
verbal  adroitness  to  cover  mental  hesitancy.  By 

1  Some  of  the  leading  pacificists  are  men  who  have  made  great 
fortunes  in  industry.  Of  course  industry  inevitably  takes  toll  of 
life.  Far  more  lives  have  been  lost  in  this  country  by  men  engaged 
in  bridge  building,  tunnel  digging,  mining,  steel  manufacturing,  the 
erection  of  sky-scrapers,  the  operations  of  the  fishing  fleet,  and  the 
like,  than  in  all  our  battles  in  all  our  foreign  wars  put  together.  Such 
loss  of  life  no  more  justifies  us  in  opposing  righteous  wars  than  in 
opposing  necessary  industry.  There  was  certainly  far  greater  loss  of 
life,  and  probably  greater  needless  and  preventable  and  uncompen¬ 
sated  loss  of  life,  in  the  industries  out  of  which  Mr.  Carnegie  made 
his  gigantic  fortune  than  has  occurred  among  our  troops  in  war  dur¬ 
ing  the  time  covered  by  Mr.  Carnegie’s  activities  on  behalf  of  peace. 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  185 


his  words  and  his  actions  President  Wilson  has 
done  everything  possible  to  prevent  this  nation 
from  making  its  army  and  navy  effective  and  to 
increase  the  inefficiency  which  he  already  found 
existing.  We  were  unprepared  when  he  took 
office,  and  every  month  since  we  have  grown  still 
less  prepared.  Yet  this  fact  did  not  prevent 
President  Wilson,  the  great  apostle  of  unpre¬ 
paredness,  the  great  apostle  of  pacificism  and 
anti-militarism,  from  going  to  war  with  Mexico 
last  spring.  It  merely  prevented  him,  or,  to 
speak  more  accurately,  the  same  mental  peculi¬ 
arities  which  made  him  the  apostle  of  unprepared¬ 
ness  also  prevented  him,  from  making  the  war 
efficient.  His  conduct  rendered  the  United  States 
an  object  of  international  derision  because  of 
the  way  in  which  its  affairs  were  managed.  Presi¬ 
dent  Wilson  made  no  declaration  of  war.  He  did 
not  in  any  way  satisfy  the  requirements  of  common 
international  law  before  acting.  He  invaded  a 
neighboring  state,  with  which  he  himself  insisted 
we  were  entirely  at  peace,  and  occupied  the  most 
considerable  seaport  of  the  country  after  mili¬ 
tary  operations  which  resulted  in  the  loss  of  the 
lives  of  perhaps  twenty  of  our  men  and  five  or 
ten  times  that  number  of  Mexicans;  and  then  he 
sat  supine,  and  refused  to  allow  either  the  United 
States  or  Mexico  to  reap  any  benefit  from  what  had 
been  done. 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


1 86 

It  is  idle  to  say  that  such  an  amazing  action 
was  not  war.  It  was  an  utterly  futile  war  and 
achieved  nothing;  but  it  was  war.  We  had 
ample  justification  for  interfering  in  Mexico  and 
even  for  going  to  war  with  Mexico,  if  after  care¬ 
ful  consideration  this  course  was  deemed  neces¬ 
sary.  But  the  President  did  not  even  take  notice 
of  any  of  the  atrocious  wrongs  Americans  had  suf¬ 
fered,  or  deal  with  any  of  the  grave  provocations 
we  had  received.  His  statement  of  justification 
was  merely  that  “we  are  in  Mexico  to  serve  man¬ 
kind,  if  we  can  find  a  way.”  Evidently  he  did 
not  have  in  his  mind  any  particular  idea  of  how  he 
was  to  “serve  mankind,”  for,  after  staying  eight 
months  in  Mexico,  he  decided  that  he  could  not 
“find  a  way”  and  brought  his  army  home.  He 
had  not  accomplished  one  single  thing.  At  one 
time  it  was  said  that  we  went  to  Vera  Cruz  to 
stop  the  shipment  of  arms  into  Mexico.  But 
after  we  got  there  we  allowed  the  shipments 
to  continue.  At  another  time  it  was  said  that 
we  went  there  in  order  to  exact  an  apology  for 
an  insult  to  the  flag.  But  we  never  did  exact  the 
apology,  and  we  left  Vera  Cruz  without  taking 
any  steps  to  get  an  apology.  In  all  our  history 
there  has  been  no  more  extraordinary  example 
of  queer  infirmity  of  purpose  in  an  important 
crisis  than  was  shown  by  President  Wilson  in  this 
matter.  His  business  was  either  not  to  interfere 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  187 


at  all  or  to  interfere  hard  and  effectively.  This 
was  the  sole  policy  which  should  have  been  al¬ 
lowed  by  regard  for  the  dignity  and  honor  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States  and  the  welfare 
of  our  people.  In  the  actual  event  President 
Wilson  interfered,  not  enough  to  quell  civil  war, 
not  enough  to  put  a  stop  to  or  punish  the  out¬ 
rages  on  American  citizens,  but  enough  to  incur 
fearful  responsibilities.  Then,  having  without 
authority  of  any  kind,  either  under  the  Consti¬ 
tution  or  in  international  law  or  in  any  other  way, 
thus  interfered,  and  having  interfered  to  worse 
than  no  purpose,  and  having  made  himself  and 
the  nation  partly  responsible  for  the  atrocious 
wrongs  committed  on  Americans  and  on  foreigners 
generally  in  Mexico  by  the  bandit  chiefs  whom 
he  was  more  or  less  furtively  supporting,  Presi¬ 
dent  Wilson  abandoned  his  whole  policy  and  drew 
out  of  Mexico  to  resume  his  “watchful  waiting.” 
When  the  President,  who  has  made  himself  the 
chief  official  exponent  of  the  doctrine  of  unpre¬ 
paredness,  thus  shows  that  even  in  his  hands 
unpreparedness  has  not  the  smallest  effect  in 
preventing  war,  there  ought  to  be  little  need  of 
discussing  the  matter  further. 

Preparedness  for  war  occasionally  has  a  slight 
effect  in  creating  or  increasing  an  aggressive  and 
militaristic  spirit.  Far  more  often  it  distinctly 
diminishes  it.  In  Switzerland,  for  instance,  which 


i88 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


we  can  well  afford  to  take  as  a  model  for 
ourselves,  effectiveness  in  preparation,  and  the 
retention  and  development  of  all  the  personal 
qualities  which  give  the  individual  man  the  fight¬ 
ing  edge,  have  in  no  shape  or  way  increased  the 
militarist  or  aggressive  spirit.  On  the  contrary, 
they  have  doubtless  been  among  the  factors  that 
have  made  the  Swiss  so  much  more  law-abiding 
and  less  homicidal  than  we  are. 

The  ultrapacificists  have  been  fond  of  prophesy¬ 
ing  the  immediate  approach  of  a  universally  peace¬ 
ful  condition  throughout  the  world,  which  will 
render  it  unnecessary  to  prepare  against  war  be¬ 
cause  there  will  be  no  more  war.  This  represents 
in  some  cases  well-meaning  and  pathetic  folly.  In 
other  cases  it  represents  mischievous  and  inexcus¬ 
able  folly.  But  it  always  represents  folly.  At 
best,  it  represents  the  inability  of  some  well- 
meaning  men  of  weak  mind,  and  of  some  men  of 
strong  but  twisted  mind,  either  to  face  or  to 
understand  facts. 

These  prophets  of  the  inane  are  not  peculiar 
to  our  own  day.  A  little  over  a  century  and  a 
quarter  ago  a  noted  Italian  pacificist  and  phi¬ 
losopher,  Aurelio  Bertela,  summed  up  the  future 
of  civilized  mankind  as  follows:  “The  political 
system  of  Europe  has  arrived  at  perfection.  An 
equilibrium  has  been  attained  which  henceforth 
will  preserve  peoples  from  subjugation.  Few  re- 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  189 


forms  are  now  needed  and  these  will  be  accom¬ 
plished  peaceably.  Europe  has  no  need  to  fear 
revolution.” 

These  sapient  statements  (which  have  been 
paralleled  by  hundreds  of  utterances  in  the  many 
peace  congresses  of  the  last  couple  of  decades) 
were  delivered  in  1787,  the  year  in  which  the 
French  Assembly  of  Notables  ushered  in  the 
greatest  era  of  revolution,  domestic  turmoil,  and 
international  war  in  all  history — an  era  which 
still  continues  and  which  shows  not  the  smallest 
sign  of  coming  to  an  end.  Never  before  have 
there  been  wars  on  so  great  a  scale  as  during  this 
century  and  a  quarter;  and  the  greatest  of  all 
these  wars  is  now  being  waged.  Never  before, 
except  for  the  ephemeral  conquests  of  certain 
Asiatic  barbarians,  have  there  been  subjugations 
of  civilized  peoples  on  so  great  a  scale. 

During  this  period  here  and  there  something 
has  been  done  for  peace,  much  has  been  done  for 
liberty,  and  very  much  has  been  done  for  reform 
and  advancement.  But  the  professional  pacifi¬ 
cists,  taken  as  a  class  throughout  the  entire  period, 
have  done  nothing  for  permanent  peace  and 
less  than  nothing  for  liberty  and  for  the  forward 
movement  of  mankind.  Hideous  things  have 
been  done  in  the  name  of  liberty,  in  the  name 
of  order,  in  the  name  of  religion;  and  the  vic¬ 
tories  that  have  been  gained  against  these  iniqui- 


190 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


ties  have  been  gained  by  strong  men,  armed,  who 
put  their  strength  at  the  service  of  righteousness 
and  who  were  hampered  and  not  helped  by  the 
futility  of  the  men  who  inveighed  against  all 
use  of  armed  strength. 

The  effective  workers  for  the  peace  of  righteous¬ 
ness  were  men  like  Stein,  Cavour,  and  Lincoln; 
that  is,  men  who  dreamed  great  dreams,  but  who 
were  also  pre-eminently  men  of  action,  who  stood 
for  the  right,  and  who  knew  that  the  right  would 
fail  unless  might  was  put  behind  it.  The  prophets 
of  pacificism  have  had  nothing  whatever  in  com¬ 
mon  with  these  great  men;  and  whenever  they 
have  preached  mere  pacificism,  whenever  they 
have  failed  to  put  righteousness  first  and  to  ad¬ 
vocate  peace  as  the  handmaiden  of  righteous¬ 
ness,  they  have  done  evil  and  not  good. 

After  the  exhaustion  of  the  N  apoleonic  struggles 
there  came  thirty-five  years  during  which  there 
was  no  great  war,  while  what  was  called  ‘  ‘  the  long 
peace”  was  broken  only  by  minor  international 
wars  or  short-lived  revolutionary  contests.  Good, 
but  not  far-sighted,  men  in  various  countries, 
but  especially  in  England,  Germany,  and  our 
own  country,  forthwith  began  to  dream  dreams — 
not  of  a  universal  peace  that  should  be  founded 
on  justice  and  righteousness  backed  by  strength, 
but  of  a  universal  peace  to  be  obtained  by  the 
prattle  of  weaklings  and  the  outpourings  of  amia- 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  191 


ble  enthusiasts  who  lacked  the  fighting  edge. 
About  1850,  for  instance,  the  first  large  peace 
congress  was  held.  There  were  numbers  of  kindly 
people  who  felt  that  this  congress,  and  the  con¬ 
temporary  international  exposition,  also  the  first 
of  its  kind,  heralded  the  beginning  of  a  regime  of 
universal  peace.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  fol¬ 
lowed  twenty  years  during  which  a  number  of 
great  and  bloody  wars  took  place — wars  far  sur¬ 
passing  in  extent,  in  duration,  in  loss  of  life  and 
property,  and  in  importance  anything  that  had 
been  seen  since  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  con¬ 
test. 

Then  there  came  another  period  of  nearly  thirty 
years  during  which  there  were  relatively  only  a 
few  wars,  and  these  not  of  the  highest  importance. 
Again  upright  and  intelligent  but  uninformed  men 
began  to  be  misled  by  foolish  men  into  the  belief 
that  world  peace  was  about  to  be  secured,  on  a 
basis  of  amiable  fatuity  all  around  and  under  the 
lead  of  the  preachers  of  the  diluted  mush  of  make- 
believe  morality.  A  number  of  peace  congresses, 
none  of  which  accomplished  anything,  were  held, 
and  also  certain  Hague  conferences,  which  did  ac¬ 
complish  a  certain  small  amount  of  real  good  but 
of  a  strictly  limited  kind.  It  was  well  worth  go¬ 
ing  into  these  Hague  conferences,  but  only  on  con¬ 
dition  of  clearly  understanding  how  strictly  limited 
was  the  good  that  they  accomplished.  The  hys- 


192 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


terical  people  who  treated  them  as  furnishing  a 
patent  peace  panacea  did  nothing  but  harm,  and 
partially  offset  the  real  but  limited  good  the  con¬ 
ferences  actually  accomplished.  Indeed,  the  con¬ 
ferences  undoubtedly  did  a  certain  amount  of 
damage  because  of  the  preposterous  expectations 
they  excited  among  well-meaning  but  ill-informed 
and  unthinking  persons.  These  persons  really  be¬ 
lieved  that  it  wras  possible  to  achieve  the  millen¬ 
nium  by  means  that  would  not  have  been  very 
effective  in  preserving  peace  among  the  active  boys 
of  a  large  Sunday-school — let  alone  grown-up  men 
in  the  world  as  it  actually  is.  A  pathetic  com¬ 
mentary  on  their  attitude  is  furnished  by  the  fact 
that  the  fifteen  years  that  have  elapsed  since  the 
first  Hague  conference  have  seen  an  immense  in¬ 
crease  of  war,  culminating  in  the  present  war, 
waged  by  armies,  and  with  bloodshed,  on  a  scale 
far  vaster  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of  man¬ 
kind. 

All  these  facts  furnish  no  excuse  whatever  for 
our  failing  to  work  zealously  for  peace,  but  they 
absolutely  require  us  to  understand  that  it  is 
noxious  to  work  for  a  peace  not  based  on  right¬ 
eousness,  and  useless  to  work  for  a  peace  based  on 
righteousness  unless  we  put  force  back  of  right¬ 
eousness.  At  present  this  means  that  adequate 
preparedness  against  war  offers  to  our  nation  its 
sole  guarantee  against  wrong  and  aggression. 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  193 


Emerson  has  said  that  in  the  long  run  the  most 
uncomfortable  truth  is  a  safer  travelling  compan¬ 
ion  than  the  most  agreeable  falsehood.  The  advo¬ 
cates  of  peace  will  accomplish  nothing  except  mis¬ 
chief  until  they  are  willing  to  look  facts  squarely 
in  the  face.  One  of  these  facts  is  that  universal 
military  service,  wherever  tried,  has  on  the  whole 
been  a  benefit  and  not  a  harm  to  the  people  of  the 
nation,  so  long  as  the  demand  upon  the  average 
man’s  life  has  not  been  for  too  long  a  time.  The 
Swiss  people  have  beyond  all  question  benefited 
by  their  system  of  limited  but  universal  prepara¬ 
tion  for  military  service.  The  same  thing  is  true 
of  Australia,  Chile,  and  Argentina.  In  every  one 
of  these  countries  the  short  military  training  given 
has  been  found  to  increase  in  marked  fashion  the 
social  and  industrial  efficiency,  the  ability  to  do 
good  industrial  work,  of  the  man  thus  trained. 
It  would  be  well  for  the  United  States  from  every 
standpoint  immediately  to  provide  such  strictly 
limited  universal  military  training. 

But  it  is  well  also  for  the  United  States  to  un¬ 
derstand  that  a  system  of  military  training  which 
from  our  standpoint  would  be  excessive  and  un¬ 
necessary  in  order  to  meet  our  needs,  may  yet 
work  admirably  for  some  other  nation.  The  two 
nations  that  during  the  last  fifty  years  have  made 
by  far  the  greatest  progress  are  Germany  and 
Japan;  and  they  are  the  two  nations  in  which 


194 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


preparedness  for  war  in  time  of  peace  has  been 
carried  to  the  highest  point  of  scientific  develop¬ 
ment.  The  feat  of  Japan  has  been  something 
absolutely  without  precedent  in  recorded  history. 
Great  civilizations,  military,  industrial,  and  ar¬ 
tistic,  have  arisen  and  flourished  in  Asia  again  and 
again  in  the  past.  But  never  before  has  an  Asiatic 
power  succeeded  in  adopting  civilization  of  the 
European  or  most  advanced  type  and  in  develop¬ 
ing  it  to  a  point  of  military  and  industrial  efficiency 
equalled  only  by  one  power  of  European  blood. 

As  for  Germany,  we  believers  in  democracy 
who  also  understand,  as  every  sound-thinking 
democrat  must,  that  democracy  cannot  succeed 
unless  it  shows  the  same  efficiency  that  is  shown 
by  autocracy  (as  Switzerland  on  a  small  scale 
has  shown  it)  need  above  all  other  men  carefully 
to  study  what  Germany  has  accomplished  during 
the  last  half  century.  Her  military  efficiency  has 
not  been  more  astounding  than  her  industrial 
and  social  efficiency;  and  the  essential  thing  in 
her  career  of  greatness  has  been  the  fact  that 
this  industrial  and  social  efficiency  is  in  part  di¬ 
rectly  based  upon  the  military  efficiency  and  in 
part  indirectly  based  upon  it,  because  based  upon 
the  mental,  physical,  and  moral  qualities  de¬ 
veloped  by  the  military  efficiency.  The  solidarity 
and  power  of  collective  action,  the  trained  ability 
to  work  hard  for  an  end  which  is  afar  off  in  the 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  195 


future,  the  combination  of  intelligent  forethought 
with  efficient  and  strenuous  action — all  these  to¬ 
gether  have  given  her  her  extraordinary  industrial 
pre-eminence;  and  all  of  these  have  been  based 
upon  her  military  efficiency. 

The  Germans  have  developed  patriotism  of 
the  most  intense  kind,  and  although  this  patriot¬ 
ism  expresses  itself  in  thunderous  songs,  in  speeches 
and  in  books,  it  does  not  confine  itself  to  these 
methods  of  expression,  but  treats  them  merely 
as  incitements  to  direct  and  efficient  action. 
After  five  months  of  war,  Germany  has  on  the 
whole  been  successful  against  opponents  which 
in  population  outnumber  her  over  two  to  one, 
and  in  natural  resources  are  largely  superior. 
Russian  and  French  armies  have  from  time  to 
time  obtained  lodgement  on  German  soil;  but  on 
the  whole  the  fighting  has  been  waged  by  Ger¬ 
man  armies  on  Russian,  French,  and  Belgian 
territory.  On  her  western  frontier,  it  is  true, 
she  was  checked  and  thrown  back  after  her  first 
drive  on  Paris,  and  again  checked  and  thrown 
slightly  back  when,  after  the  fall  of  Antwerp,  she 
attempted  to  advance  along  the  Belgian  coast. 
But  in  the  west  she  has  on  the  whole  successfully 
pursued  the  offensive,  and  her  battle  lines  are  in 
the  enemies’  territory,  although  she  has  had  to 
face  the  entire  strength  of  France,  England,  and 
Belgium. 


196 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


Moreover,  she  did  this  with  only  a  part  of  her 
forces.  At  the  same  time  she  was  also  obliged 
to  use  immense  armies,  singly  or  in  conjunction 
with  the  Austrians,  against  the  Russians  on  her 
Eastern  frontier.  No  one  can  foretell  the  issue 
of  the  war.  But  what  Germany  has  already  done 
must  extort  the  heartiest  admiration  for  her  grim 
efficiency.  It  could  have  been  done  only  by  a 
masterful  people  guided  by  keen  intelligence  and 
inspired  by  an  intensely  patriotic  spirit. 

France  has  likewise  shown  to  fine  advantage 
in  this  war  (in  spite  of  certain  marked  short¬ 
comings,  such  as  the  absurd  uniforms  of  her 
soldiers)  because  of  her  system  of  universal  mili¬ 
tary  training.  England  has  suffered  lamentably 
because  there  has  been  no  such  system.  Great 
masses  of  Englishmen,  including  all  her  men 
at  the  front,  have  behaved  so  as  to  command  our 
heartiest  admiration.  But  qualification  must  be 
made  when  the  nation  as  a  whole  is  considered. 
Her  professional  soldiers,  her  navy,  and  her  upper 
classes  have  done  admirably;  but  the  English 
papers  describe  certain  sections  of  her  people  as 
making  a  poor  showing  in  their  refusal  to  volun¬ 
teer.  The  description  of  the  professional  football 
matches,  attended  by  tens  of  thousands  of  spec¬ 
tators,  none  of  whom  will  enlist,  makes  a  decent 
man  ardently  wish  that  under  a  rigid  conscription 
law  the  entire  body  of  players,  promoters,  and 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  197 


spectators  could  be  sent  to  the  front.  Scotland 
and  Canada  have  apparently  made  an  extraordi¬ 
nary  showing;  .the  same  thing  is  true  of  sections, 
high  and  low,  of  society  in  England  proper;  but 
it  is  also  true  that  certain  sections  of  the  British 
democracy  under  a  system  of  free  volunteering 
have  shown  to  disadvantage  compared  to  Ger¬ 
many,  where  military  service  is  universal.  The 
lack  of  foresight  in  preparation  was  also  shown 
by  the  inability  of  the  authorities  to  furnish  arms 
and  equipment  for  the  troops  that  were  being 
raised.  These  shortcomings  are  not  alluded  to 
by  me  in  a  censorious  spirit,  and  least  of  all  with 
any  idea  of  reflecting  on  England,  but  purely  that 
our  own  people  may  profit  by  the  lessons  taught. 
America  should  pay  heed  to  these  facts  and  profit 
by  them;  and  we  can  only  so  profit  if  we  realize 
that  under  like  conditions  we  should  at  the 
moment  make  a  much  poorer  showing  than  En¬ 
gland  has  made. 

It  is  indispensable  to  remember  that  in  the 
cases  of  both  Germany  and  Japan  their  extraor¬ 
dinary  success  has  been  due  directly  to  that  kind 
of  efficiency  in  war  which  springs  only  from  the 
highest  efficiency  in  preparedness  for  war.  Until 
educated  people  who  sincerely  desire  peace  face 
this  fact  with  all  of  its  implications,  unpleasant 
and  pleasant,  they  will  not  be  able  to  better 
present  international  conditions.  In  order  to  se- 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


198 

cure  this  betterment,  conditions  must  be  created 
which  will  enable  civilized  nations  to  achieve  such 
efficiency  without  being  thereby  rendered  danger¬ 
ous  to  their  neighbors  and  to  civilization  as  a 
whole.  Americans,  particularly,  and,  to  a  de¬ 
gree  only  slightly  less,  Englishmen  and  Frenchmen 
need  to  remember  this  fact,  for  while  the  ultra¬ 
pacificists,  the  peace-at-any-price  men,  have  ap¬ 
peared  sporadically  everywhere,  they  have  of 
recent  years  been  most  numerous  and  noxious  in 
the  United  States,  in  Great  Britain,  and  in  France. 

Inasmuch  as  in  our  country,  where,  Heaven 
knows,  we  have  evils  enough  with  which  to  grap¬ 
ple,  none  of  these  evils  is  in  even  the  smallest  de¬ 
gree  due  to  militarism — inasmuch  as  to  inveigh 
against  militarism  in  the  United  States  is  about 
as  useful  as  to  inveigh  against  eating  horse-flesh  in 
honor  of  Odin — this  seems  curious.  But  it  is  true. 
Probably  it  is  merely  another  illustration  of  the 
old,  old  truth  that  persons  who  shrink  from  grap¬ 
pling  with  grave  and  real  evils  often  strive  to 
atone  to  their  consciences  for  such  failure  by  empty 
denunciation  of  evils  which  to  them  offer  no  dan¬ 
ger  and  no  temptation;  which,  as  far  as  they  are 
concerned,  do  not  exist.  Such  denunciation  is 
easy.  It  is  also  worthless. 

American  college  presidents,  clergymen,  pro¬ 
fessors,  and  publicists  with  much  pretension — 
some  of  it  founded  on  fact — to  intelligence  have 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  199 


praised  works  like  that  of  Mr.  Bloch,  who 
‘  ‘  proved  ’  ’  that  war  was  impossible,  and  like  those 
of  Mr.  Norman  Angell,  who  “proved”  that  it 
was  an  illusion  to  believe  that  it  was  profitable. 
The  greatest  and  most  terrible  wars  in  history 
have  taken  place  since  Mr.  Bloch  wrote.  When 
Mr.  Angell  wrote  no  unprejudiced  man  of  wis¬ 
dom  could  have  failed  to  understand  that  the  two 
most  successful  nations  of  recent  times,  Germany 
and  Japan,  owed  their  great  national  success  to 
successful  war.  The  United  States  owes  not  only 
its  greatness  but  its  very  existence  to  the  fact 
that  in  the  Civil  War  the  men  who  controlled  its 
destinies  were  the  fighting  men.  The  counsels  of 
the  ultrapacificists,  the  peace-at-any-price  men  of 
that  day,  if  adopted,  would  have  meant  not  only 
the  death  of  the  nation  but  an  incalculable  disaster 
to  humanity.  A  righteous  war  may  at  any  moment 
be  essential  to  national  welfare ;  and  it  is  a  lamen¬ 
table  fact  that  nations  have  sometimes  profited 
greatly  by  war  that  was  not  righteous.  Such  evil 
profit  will  never  be  done  away  with  until  armed 
force  is  put  behind  righteousness. 

We  must  also  remember,  however,  that  the 
mischievous  folly  of  the  men  whose  counsels  tend 
to  inefficiency  and  impotence  is  not  worse  than 
the  baseness  of  the  men  who  in  a  spirit  of  mean 
and  cringing  admiration  of  brute  force  gloss  over, 
or  justify,  or  even  deify,  the  exhibition  of  unscrupu- 


200 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


lous  strength.  Writings  like  those  of  Homer  Lea, 
or  of  Nietzsche,  or  even  of  Professor  Treitschke 
— not  to  speak  of  Carlyle — are  as  objectionable 
as  those  of  Messrs.  Bloch  and  Angell.  Our 
people  need  to  pay  homage  to  the  great  effi¬ 
ciency  and  the  intense  patriotism  of  Germany. 
But  they  need  no  less  fully  to  realize  that  this 
patriotism  has  at  times  been  accompanied  by 
callous  indifference  to  the  rights  of  weaker  na¬ 
tions,  and  that  this  efficiency  has  at  times  been 
exercised  in  a  way  that  represents  a  genuine  set¬ 
back  to  humanity  and  civilization.  Germany’s 
conduct  toward  Belgium  can  be  justified  only  in 
accordance  with  a  theory  which  will  also  justify 
Napoleon’s  conduct  toward  Spain  and  his  treat¬ 
ment  of  Prussia  and  of  all  Germany  during  the 
six  years  succeeding  Jena.  I  do  not  see  how  any 
man  can  fail  to  sympathize  with  Stein  and  Schom- 
horst;  with  Andreas  Hofer,  with  the  Maid  of 
Saragossa,  with  Koemer  and  the  Tugendbund; 
and  if  he  does  so  sympathize,  he  must  extend  the 
same  sympathy  and  admiration  to  King  Albert 
and  the  Belgians. 

Moreover,  it  is  well  for  Americans  always  to  re¬ 
member  that  what  has  been  done  to  Belgium 
would,  of  course,  be  done  to  us  just  as  unhesitat¬ 
ingly  if  the  conditions  required  it. 

Of  course,  the  lowest  depth  is  reached  by  the 
professional  pacificists  who  continue  to  scream  for 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  201 


peace  without  daring  to  protest  against  any  con¬ 
crete  wrong  committed  against  peace.  These  in¬ 
clude  all  of  our  fellow  countrymen  who  at  the 
present  time  clamor  for  peace  without  explicitly 
and  clearly  declaring  that  the  first  condition  of 
peace  should  be  the  righting  of  the  wrongs  of 
Belgium,  reparation  to  her,  and  guarantee  against 
the  possible  repetition  of  such  wrongs  at  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  any  well-behaved  small  civilized  power 
in  the  future.  It  may  be  that  peace  will  come 
without  such  reparation  and  guarantee  but  if  so 
it  will  be  as  emphatically  the  peace  of  unright¬ 
eousness  as  was  the  peace  made  at  Tilsit  a  hundred 
and  seven  years  ago. 

When  the  President  appoints  a  day  of  prayer 
for  peace,  without  emphatically  making  it  evident 
that  the  prayer  should  be  for  the  redress  of  the 
wrongs  without  which  peace  would  be  harmful, 
he  cannot  be  considered  as  serving  righteousness. 
When  Mr.  Bryan  concludes  absurd  all-inclusive 
arbitration  treaties  and  is  loquacious  to  peace 
societies  about  the  abolition  of  war,  without  dar¬ 
ing  to  protest  against  the  hideous  wrongs  done 
Belgium,  he  feebly  serves  unrighteousness.  More 
comic  manifestations,  of  course  entirely  useless 
but  probably  too  fatuous  to  be  really  mischievous, 
are  those  which  find  expression  in  the  circulation 
of  peace  postage-stamps  with  doves  on  them,  or 
in  taking  part  in  peace  parades — they  might  as 


202 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


well  be  antivaccination  parades — or  in  the  circu¬ 
lation  of  peace  petitions  to  be  signed  by  school- 
children,  which  for  all  their  possible  effect  might 
just  as  well  relate  to  the  planet  Mars. 

International  peace  will  only  come  when  the 
nations  of  the  world  form  some  kind  of  league 
which  provides  for  an  international  tribunal  to 
decide  on  international  matters,  which  decrees 
that  treaties  and  international  agreements  are 
never  to  be  entered  into  recklessly  and  foolishly, 
and  when  once  entered  into  are  to  be  observed 
with  entire  good  faith,  and  which  puts  the  collec¬ 
tive  force  of  civilization  behind  such  treaties  and 
agreements  and  court  decisions  and  against  any 
wrong-doing  or  recalcitrant  nation.  The  all- 
inclusive  arbitration  treaties  negotiated  by  the 
present  administration  amount  to  almost  nothing. 
They  are  utterly  worthless  for  good.  They  are 
however  slightly  mischievous  because: 

1.  There  is  no  provision  for  their  enforcement, 
and, 

2.  They  would  be  in  some  cases  not  only  im¬ 
possible  but  improper  to  enforce. 

A  treaty  is  a  promise.  It  is  like  a  promise  to 
pay  in  the  commercial  world.  Its  value  lies  in 
the  means  provided  for  redeeming  the  promise. 
To  make  it,  and  not  redeem  it,  is  vicious.  A 
United  States  gold  certificate  is  valuable  because 
gold  is  back  of  it.  If  there  were  nothing  back  of 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  203 


it  the  certificate  would  sink  to  the  position  of 
fiat  money,  which  is  irredeemable,  and  therefore 
valueless;  as  in  the  case  of  our  Revolutionary 
currency.  The  Wilson-Bryan  all-inclusive  arbi¬ 
tration  treaties  represent  nothing  whatever  but 
international  fiat  money.  To  make  them  is  no 
more  honest  than  it  is  to  issue  fiat  money.  Mr. 
Bryan  would  not  make  a  good  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  but  he  would  do  better  in  that  posi¬ 
tion  than  as  Secretary  of  State.  For  his  type  of 
fiat  obligations  is  a  little  worse  in  international 
than  in  internal  affairs.  The  all-inclusive  arbi¬ 
tration  treaties,  in  whose  free  and  unlimited  ne¬ 
gotiation  Mr.  Bryan  takes  such  pleasure,  are  of 
less  value  than  the  thirty-cent  dollars,  whose  free 
and  unlimited  coinage  he  formerly  advocated. 

An  efficient  world  league  for  peace  is  as  yet  in 
the  future;  and  it  may  be,  although  I  sincerely 
hope  not,  in  the  far  future.  The  indispensable 
thing  for  every  free  people  to  do  in  the  present 
day  is  with  efficiency  to  prepare  against  war 
by  making  itself  able  physically  to  defend  its 
rights  and  by  cultivating  that  stern  and  manly 
spirit  without  which  no  material  preparation  will 
avail. 

The  last  point  is  all  essential.  It  is  not  of  much 
use  to  provide  an  armed  force  if  that  force  is 
composed  of  poltroons  and  ultrapacificists.  Such 
men  should  be  sent  to  the  front,  of  course,  for  they 


204 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


should  not  be  allowed  to  shirk  the  danger  which 
their  braver  fellow  countrymen  willingly  face,  and 
under  proper  discipline  some  use  can  be  made  of 
them ;  but  the  fewer  there  are  of  them  in  a  nation 
the  better  the  army  of  that  nation  will  be. 

A  Yale  professor — he  might  just  as  well  have 
been  a  Harvard  professor — is  credited  in  the  press 
with  saying  the  other  day  that  he  wishes  the 
United  States  would  take  the  position  that  if  at¬ 
tacked  it  would  not  defend  itself,  and  would  sub¬ 
mit  unresistingly  to  any  spoliation.  The  profes¬ 
sor  said  that  this  would  afford  such  a  beautiful 
example  to  mankind  that  war  would  undoubtedly 
be  abolished.  Magazine  writers,  and  writers  of 
syndicate  articles  published  in  reputable  papers, 
have  recently  advocated  similar  plans.  Men  who 
talk  this  way  are  thoroughly  bad  citizens.  Few 
members  of  the  criminal  class  are  greater  enemies 
of  the  republic. 

American  citizens  must  understand  that  they 
cannot  advocate  or  acquiesce  in  an  evil  course 
of  action  and  then  escape  responsibility  for  the 
results.  If  disaster  comes  to  our  navy  in  the  near 
future  it  will  be  directly  due  to  the  way  the  navy 
has  been  handled  during  the  past  twenty-two 
months,  and  a  part  of  the  responsibility  will  be 
shared  by  every  man  who  has  failed  effectively 
to  protest  against,  or  in  any  way  has  made  him¬ 
self  responsible  for,  the  attitude  of  the  present 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  205 


administration  in  foreign  affairs  and  as  regards 
the  navy. 

The  first  and  most  important  thing  for  us  as  a 
people  to  do,  in  order  to  prepare  ourselves  for 
self-defense,  is  to  get  clearly  in  our  minds  just 
what  our  policy  is  to  be,  and  to  insist  that  our 
public  servants  shall  make  their  words  and  their 
deeds  correspond.  As  has  already  been  pointed 
out,  the  present  administration  was  elected  on  the 
explicit  promise  that  the  Philippines  should  be 
given  their  independence,  and  it  has  taken  action 
in  the  Philippines  which  can  only  be  justified  on 
the  theory  that  this  independence  is  to  come  in 
the  immediate  future.  I  believe  that  we  have 
rendered  incalculable  service  to  the  Philippines, 
and  that  what  we  have  there  done  has  shown  in 
the  most  striking  manner  the  extreme  mischief 
that  would  have  followed  if,  in  1898  and  the  sub¬ 
sequent  years,  we  had  failed  to  do  our  duty  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  following  the  advice  of  Mr.  Bryan 
and  the  pacificists  or  anti-imperialists  of  that  day. 
But  we  must  keep  our  promises;  and  we  ought 
now  to  leave  the  islands  completely  at  as  early  a 
date  as  possible. 

There  remains  to  defend — the  United  States 
proper,  the  Panama  Canal  and  its  approaches, 
Alaska,  and  Hawaii.  To  defend  all  these  is  vital 
to  our  honor  and  interest.  For  such  defense  pre¬ 
paredness  is  essential. 


206 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


The  first  and  most  essential  form  of  prepared¬ 
ness  should  be  making  the  navy  efficient.  Abso¬ 
lutely  and  relatively,  our  navy  has  never  been 
at  such  a  pitch  of  efficiency  as  in  February,  1909, 
when  the  battle  fleet  returned  from  its  voyage 
around  the  world.  Unit  for  unit,  there  was  no 
other  navy  in  the  world  which  was  at  that  time 
its  equal.  During  the  next  four  years  we  had 
an  admirable  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Mr.  Meyer 
— we  were  fortunate  in  having  then  and  since 
good  Secretaries  of  War  in  Mr.  Stimson  and  Mr. 
Garrison.  Owing  to  causes  for  which  Mr.  Meyer 
was  in  no  way  responsible,  there  was  a  slight  rel¬ 
ative  falling  off  in  the  efficiency  of  the  navy,  and 
probably  a  slight  absolute  falling  off  during  the 
following  four  years.  But  it  remained  very  ef¬ 
ficient. 

Since  Mr.  Daniels  came  in,  and  because  of 
the  action  taken  by  Mr.  Daniels  under  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  President  Wilson,  there  has  been  a  most 
lamentable  reduction  in  efficiency.  If  at  this 
moment  we  went  to  war  with  a  first-class  navy 
of  equal  strength  to  our  own,  there  would  be  a 
chance  not  only  of  defeat  but  of  disgrace.  It  is 
probably  impossible  to  put  the  navy  in  really 
first-class  condition  with  Mr.  Daniels  at  its  head, 
precisely  as  it  is  impossible  to  conduct  our  foreign 
affairs  with  dignity  and  efficiency  while  Mr. 
Bryan  is  at  the  head  of  the  State  Department. 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  20 7 


But  the  great  falling-off  in  naval  efficiency  has 
been  due  primarily  to  the  policy  pursued  by 
President  Wilson  himself.  He  has  kept  the  navy 
in  Mexican  waters.  The  small  craft  at  Tampico 
and  elsewhere  could  have  rendered  real  service, 
but  the  President  refused  to  allow  them  to  render 
such  service,  and  left  English  and  German  sea 
officers  to  protect  our  people.  The  great  war  craft 
were  of  no  use  at  all;  yet  at  this  moment  he  has 
brought  back  from  Mexico  the  army  which  could 
be  of  some  use  and  has  kept  there  the  war-ships 
which  cannot  be  of  any  use,  and  which  suffer 
terribly  in  efficiency  from  being  so  kept.  The 
fleet  has  had  no  manoeuvring  for  twenty-two 
months.  It  has  had  almost  no  gun  practice  by 
division  during  that  time.  There  is  not  enough 
powder;  there  are  not  enough  torpedoes;  the 
bottoms  of  the  ships  are  foul;  there  are  grave 
defects  in  the  submarines ;  there  is  a  deficiency  in 
aircraft;  the  under-enlistments  indicate  a  defi¬ 
ciency  of  from  ten  thousand  to  twenty  thousand 
men;  the  whole  service  is  being  handled  in  such 
manner  as  to  impair  its  fitness  and  morale. ' 

Congress  should  summon  before  its  committees 
the  best  naval  experts  and  provide  the  battle¬ 
ships,  cruisers,  submarines,  floating  mines,  and 
aircraft  that  these  experts  declare  to  be  necessary 
for  the  full  protection  of  the  United  States.  It 
should  bear  in  mind  that  while  many  of  these 


208 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


machines  of  war  are  essentially  to  be  used  in  strik¬ 
ing  from  the  coasts  themselves,  yet  that  others 
must  be  designed  to  keep  the  enemy  afar  from 
these  coasts.  Mere  defensive  by  itself  cannot  per¬ 
manently  avail.  The  only  permanently  efficient 
defensive  arm  is  one  which  can  act  offensively. 
Our  navy  must  be  fitted  for  attack,  for  delivering 
smashing  blows,  in  order  effectively  to  defend  our 
own  shores.  Above  all,  we  should  remember  that 
a  highly  trained  personnel  is  absolutely  indispen¬ 
sable,  for  without  it  no  material  preparation  is  of 
the  least  avail. 

But  the  navy  alone  will  not  suffice  in  time  of 
great  crisis.  If  England  had  adopted  the  policy 
urged  by  Lord  Roberts,  there  would  probably 
have  been  no  war  and  certainly  the  war  would 
now  have  been  at  an  end,  as  she  would  have  been 
able  to  protect  Belgium,  as  well  as  herself,  and  to 
save  France  from  invasion.  Relatively  to  the 
Continent,  England  was  utterly  unprepared;  but 
she  was  a  miracle  of  preparedness  compared  to  us. 
There  are  many  ugly  features  connected  with  the 
slowness  of  certain  sections  of  the  English  people 
to  volunteer  and  with  their  deficiency  in  rifles, 
horses,  and  equipment;  and  there  have  been  cer¬ 
tain  military  and  naval  shortcomings;  but  until 
we  have  radically  altered  our  habits  of  thought 
and  action  we  can  only  say  with  abashed  humility 
that  if  England  has  not  shown  to  advantage  com- 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  209 


pared  to  Germany,  she  has  certainly  done  far  bet¬ 
ter  than  we  would  have  done,  and  than,  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  fact,  we  actually  have  done  during  the  past 
twenty-two  months,  both  as  regards  Mexico  and 
as  regards  the  fulfilment  of  our  duty  in  the  situa¬ 
tion  created  by  the  world  war. 

Congress  should  at  once  act  favorably  along 
the  lines  recommended  in  the  recent  excellent 
report  of  the  Secretary  of  War  and  in  accordance 
with  the  admirable  plan  outlined  in  the  last 
report  of  the  Chief  of  Staff  of  the  army,  General 
Wotherspoon — a  report  with  which  his  prede¬ 
cessor  as  Chief  of  Staff,  General  Wood,  appears 
to  be  in  complete  sympathy.  Our  army  should 
be  doubled  in  size.  An  effective  reserve  should  be 
created.  Every  year  there  should  be  field  ma¬ 
noeuvres  on  a  large  scale,  a  hundred  thousand 
being  engaged  for  several  weeks.  The  artillery 
should  be  given  the  most  scientific  training.  The 
equipment  should  be  made  perfect  at  every  point. 
Rigid  economy  should  be  demanded. 

Every  officer  and  man  should  be  kept  to  the 
highest  standard  of  physical  and  moral  fitness. 
The  unfit  should  be  ruthlessly  weeded  out.  At 
least  one  third  of  the  officers  in  each  grade  should 
be  promoted  on  merit  without  regard  to  seniority, 
and  the  least  fit  for  promotion  should  be  retired. 
Every  unit  of  the  regular  army  and  reserve  should 
be  trained  to  the  highest  efficiency  under  war  con¬ 
ditions. 


210 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


But  this  is  not  enough.  There  should  be  at 
least  ten  times  the  number  of  rifles  and  the  quan¬ 
tity  of  ammunition  in  the  country  that  there  are 
now.  In  our  high  schools  and  colleges  a  system 
of  military  training  like  that  which  obtains  in 
Switzerland  and  Australia  should  be  given.  Fur¬ 
thermore,  all  our  young  men  should  be  trained  in 
actual  field-service  under  war  conditions;  prefera¬ 
bly  on  the  Swiss,  but  if  not  on  the  Swiss  then  on 
the  Argentinian  or  Chilean  model. 

The  Swiss  model  would  probably  be  better 
for  our  people.  It  would  necessitate  only  four 
to  six  months’  service  shortly  after  graduation 
from  high  school  or  college,  and  thereafter  only 
about  eight  days  a  year.  No  man  could  buy  a 
substitute;  no  man  would  be  excepted  because  of 
his  wealth;  all  would  serve  in  the  ranks  on  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  terms  side  by  side. 

Under  this  system  the  young  men  would  be 
trained  to  shoot,  to  march,  to  take  care  of  them¬ 
selves  in  the  open,  and  to  learn  those  habits  of 
self-reliance  and  law-abiding  obedience  which  are 
not  only  essential  to  the  efficiency  of  a  citizen 
soldiery,  but  are  no  less  essential  to  the  efficient 
performance  of  civic  duties  in  a  free  democracy. 
My  own  firm  belief  is  that  this  system  would  help 
us  in  civil  quite  as  much  as  in  military  matters. 
It  would  increase  our  social  and  industrial  effi¬ 
ciency.  It  would  help  us  to  habits  of  order  and 
respect  for  law. 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  21 1 


This  proposal  does  not  represent  anything 
more  than  carrying  out  the  purpose  of  the  second 
amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  which 
declares  that  a  well-regulated  militia  is  necessary 
to  the  security  of  a  free  nation.  The  Swiss  army 
is  a  well-regulated  militia;  and,  therefore  it  is 
utterly  different  from  any  militia  we  have  ever 
had.  The  system  of  compulsory  training  and  uni¬ 
versal  service  has  worked  admirably  in  Switzer¬ 
land.  It  has  saved  the  Swiss  from  war.  It  has 
developed  their  efficiency  in  peace. 

In  theory,  President  Wilson  advocates  unpre¬ 
paredness,  and  in  the  actual  fact  he  practises,  on 
our  behalf,  tame  submission  to  wrong-doing  and 
refusal  to  stand  for  our  own  rights  or  for  the  rights 
of  any  weak  power  that  is  wronged.  We  who 
take  the  opposite  view  advocate  merely  acting  as 
Washington  urged  us  to  act,  when  in  his  first 
annual  address  he  said:  “To  be  prepared  for  war 
is  one  of  the  most  effectual  means  for  preserving 
peace.  A  free  people  ought  not  only  to  be  armed 
but  disciplined ;  to  which  end  a  uniform  and  well- 
digested  plan  is  requisite.”  Jefferson  was  not  a 
fighting  man,  but  even  Jefferson,  writing  to  Mon¬ 
roe  in  1785,  urged  the  absolute  need  of  building 
up  our  navy  if  we  wished  to  escape  oppression  to 
our  commerce  and  “the  present  disrespect  of  the 
nations  of  Europe,”  and  added  the  pregnant 
sentence:  “A  coward  is  much  more  exposed  to 


212 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


quarrels  than  a  man  of  spirit.”  As  President,  he 
urged  our  people  to  train  themselves  to  arms,  so 
as  to  constitute  a  citizen  soldiery,  in  terms  that 
showed  that  his  object  was  to  accomplish  exactly 
what  the  Swiss  have  accomplished,  and  what  is 
advocated  in  this  book.  In  one  annual  message 
he  advocated  ‘‘the  organization  of  300,000  able- 
bodied  men  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and 
twenty-five  for  offense  or  defense  at  any  time  or 
in  any  place  where  they  may  be  wanted.”  In  a 
letter  to  Monroe  he  advocated  compulsory  mili¬ 
tary  service,  saying:  “We  must  train  and  classify 
the  whole  of  our  male  citizenry  and  make  mili¬ 
tary  instruction  a  part  of  collegiate  education.  We 
can  never  be  safe  until  this  is  done.”  The  methods 
taken  by  Jefferson  and  the  Americans  of  Jeffep 
son’s  day  to  accomplish  this  object  were  fatally 
defective.  But  their  purpose  was  the  same  that 
those  who  think  as  we  do  now  put  forward. 
The  difference  is  purely  that  we  present  efficient 
methods  for  accomplishing  this  purpose.  Wash¬ 
ington  was  a  practical  man  of  high  ideals  who 
always  strove  to  reduce  his  ideals  to  practice. 
His  address  to  Congress  in  December,  1793,  ought 
to  have  been  read  by  President  Wilson  before 
the  latter  sent  in  his  message  of  1914  with  its 
confused  advocacy  of  unpreparedness  and  its 
tone  of  furtive  apology  for  submission  to  insult. 
Washington  said:  “There  is  much  due  to  the 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  213 


United  States  among  nations  which  will  be  with¬ 
held,  if  not  absolutely  lost,  by  the  reputation  of 
weakness.  If  we  desire  to  avoid  insult,  we  must 
be  able  to  repel  it.  If  we  desire  to  secure  peace 
...  it  must  be  known  that  we  are  at  all  times 
ready  for  war,”  and  he  emphasized  the  fact  that 
the  peace  thus  secured  by  preparedness  for  war 
is  the  most  potent  method  of  obtaining  material 
prosperity. 

The  need  of  such  a  system  as  that  which  I  ad¬ 
vocate  is  well  brought  out  in  a  letter  I  recently  re¬ 
ceived  from  a  college  president.  It  runs  in  part 
as  follows: 

What  the  average  young  fellow  of  eighteen  to  thirty 
doesn’t  know  about  shooting  and  riding  makes  an  ap¬ 
palling  total.  I  remember  very  well  visiting  the  First 
Connecticut  Regiment  a  day  or  two  before  it  left  for 
service  in  the  Spanish  War.  A  good  many  of  my  boys 
were  with  them  and  I  went  to  see  them  off.  One  fellow 
in  particular,  of  whom  I  was  and  am  very  fond,  took  me 
to  his  tent  and  proudly  exhibited  his  rifle,  calling  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  beautiful  condition  to  which  he  had  brought 
it.  It  certainly  was  extremely  shiny,  and  I  commended 
him  for  his  careful  cleansing  of  his  death-dealing  weapon. 
Then  I  discovered  that  the  firing-pin  (it  was  an  old 
Springfield)  was  rusted  immovably  into  its  place,  and 
that  my  boy  didn’t  know  that  there  was  any  firing-pin. 
He  had  learned  to  expect  that  if  you  put  a  cartridge  into 
the  breech,  pulled  down  the  block,  and  pulled  the  trigger, 
it  would  probably  go  off  if  he  had  previously  cocked  it; 
but  he  had  never  done  any  of  these  things. 


214 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


It  was  my  fortune  to  grow  up  amid  surroundings  and 
in  a  time  when  every  boy  had  and  used  a  gun.  Any  boy 
fourteen  years  old  who  was  not  the  proprietor  of  some 
kind  of  shooting-iron  and  fairly  proficient  in  its  use  was 
in  disgrace.  Such  a  situation  was  unthinkable.  So  we 
were  all  fairly  dependable  shots  with  a  fowling-piece  or 
rifle.  As  a  result  of  this  and  subsequent  experience,  I 
really  believe  that  so  long  as  my  aging  body  would  endure 
hardship,  and  provided  further  that  I  could  be  prevented 
from  running  away,  I  should  be  a  more  efficient  soldier 
than  most  of  the  young  fellows  on  our  campus  to-day. 

I  have  watched  with  much  dissatisfaction  the  gradual 
disappearance  of  the  military  schools  here  in  the  East. 
There  are  some  prominent  and  useful  ones  in  the  West, 
but  they  are  far  too  few,  and  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any 
preliminary  military  training  of  any  sort  in  our  public 
schools.  I  fear  that  the  military  training  required  by  law 
in  certain  agricultural  and  other  schools  receiving  federal 
aid  is  more  or  less  of  a  fake;  the  object  seeming  to  be  to 
get  the  appropriation  and  make  the  least  possible  return. 

If  in  any  way  you  can  bring  it  about  that  our  boys 
shall  be  taught  to  shoot,  I  believe  with  you  that  they  can 
learn  the  essentials  of  drill  very  quickly  when  need  arises. 
And  even  so,  however,  our  rulers  must  learn  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  having  rifles  enough  and  ammunition  enough  to 
meet  any  emergency  at  all  likely  to  occur. 

It  is  idle  for  this  nation  to  trust  to  arbitration 
and  neutrality  treaties  unbacked  by  force.  It  is 
idle  to  trust  to  the  tepid  good-will  of  other  na¬ 
tions.  It  is  idle  to  trust  to  alliances.  Alliances 
change.  Russia  and  Japan  are  now  fighting  side 
by  side,  although  nine  years  ago  they  were  fight- 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  215 


ing  against  one  another.  Twenty  years  ago 
Russia  and  Germany  stood  side  by  side.  Fifteen 
years  ago  England  was  more  hostile  to  Russia, 
and  even  to  France,  than  she  was  to  Germany. 
It  is  perfectly  possible  that  after  the  close  of  this 
war  the  present  allies  will  fall  out,  or  that  Germany 
and  Japan  will  turn  up  in  close  alliance. 

It  is  our  duty  to  try  to  work  for  a  great  world 
league  for  righteous  peace  enforced  by  power; 
but  no  such  league  is  yet  in  sight.  At  present 
the  prime  duty  of  the  American  people  is  to 
abandon  the  inane  and  mischievous  principle  of 
watchful  waiting — that  is,  of  slothful  and  timid 
refusal  either  to  face  facts  or  to  perform  duty. 
Let  us  act  justly  toward  others;  and  let  us  also 
be  prepared  with  stout  heart  and  strong  hand  to 
defend  our  rights  against  injustice  from  others. 

In  his  recent  report  the  Secretary  of  War,  Mr. 
Garrison,  has  put  the  case  for  preparedness  in. 
the  interest  of  honorable  peace  so  admirably  that 
what  he  says  should  be  studied  by  all  our  people. 
It  runs  in  part  as  follows: 

“This,  then,  leaves  for  consideration  the  imminent 
questions  of  military  policy;  the  considerations  which, 
in  my  view,  should  be  taken  into  account  in  determining 
the  same;  and  the  suggestions  which  occur  to  me  to  be 
pertinent  in  the  circumstances. 

It  would  be  premature  to  attempt  now  to  draw  the 
ultimate  lessons  from  the  war  in  Europe.  It  is  an  impera- 


2l6 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


tive  duty,  however,  to  heed  so  much  of  what  it  brings 
home  to  us  as  is  incontrovertible  and  not  to  be  changed 
by  any  event,  leaving  for  later  and  more  detailed  and 
comprehensive  consideration  what  its  later  developments 
and  final  conclusions  may  indicate. 

For  orderly  treatment  certain  preliminary  considera¬ 
tions  may  be  usefully  adverted  to.  It  is,  of  course,  not 
necessary  to  dwell  on  the  blessings  of  peace  and  the 
horrors  of  war.  Every  one  desires  peace,  just  as  every 
one  desires  health,  contentment,  affection,  sufficient 
means  for  comfortable  existence,  and  other  similarly 
beneficent  things.  But  peace  and  the  other  states  of 
being  just  mentioned  are  not  always  or  even  often  solely 
within  one’s  own  control.  Those  who  are  thoughtful  and 
have  courage  face  the  facts  of  life,  take  lessons  from  ex¬ 
perience,  and  strive  by  wise  conduct  to  attain  the  desir¬ 
able  things,  and  by  prevision  and  precaution  to  protect 
and  defend  them  when  obtained.  It  may  truthfully  be  said 
that  eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  which  must  be  paid  in 
order  to  obtain  the  desirable  things  of  life  and  to  defend 
them. 

In  collective  affairs  the  interests  of  the  group  are  con¬ 
fided  to  the  government,  and  it  thereupon  is  charged  with 
the  duty  to  preserve  and  defend  these  things.  The  gov¬ 
ernment  must  exercise  for  the  nation  the  precautionary, 
defensive,  and  preservative  measures  necessary  to  that 
end.  All  governments  must  therefore  have  force — 
physical  force — i.  e .,  military  force,  for  these  purposes. 
The  question  for  each  nation  when  this  matter  is  under 
consideration  is,  How  much  force  should  it  have  and  of 
what  should  that  force  consist? 

In  the  early  history  of  our  nation  there  was  a  natural, 
almost  inevitable,  abhorrence  of  military  force,  because 
it  connoted  military  despotism.  Most,  if  not  all,  of  the 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  21 7 


early  settlers  in  this  country  came  from  nations  where  a 
few  powerful  persons  tyrannically  imposed  their  will 
upon  the  people  by  means  of  military  power.  The  con¬ 
sequence  was  that  the  oppressed  who  fled  to  this  country 
necessarily  connected  military  force  with  despotism  and 
had  a  dread  thereof.  Of  course,  all  this  has  long  since 
passed  into  history.  No  reasonable  person  in  this  coun¬ 
try  to-day  has  the  slightest  shadow  of  fear  of  military 
despotism,  nor  of  any  interference  whatever  by  military 
force  in  the  conduct  of  civil  affairs.  The  military  and  the 
civil  are  just  as  completely  and  permanently  separated 
in  this  country  as  the  church  and  the  state  are;  the  sub¬ 
jection  of  the  military  to  the  civil  is  settled  and  unchange¬ 
able.  The  only  reason  for  adverting  to  the  obsolete  con¬ 
dition  is  to  anticipate  the  action  of  those  who  will  cite 
from  the  works  of  the  founders  of  the  republic  excerpts 
showing  a  dread  of  military  ascendancy  in  our  govern¬ 
ment.  Undoubtedly,  at  the  time  such  sentiments  were 
expressed  there  was  a  very  real  dread.  At  the  present 
time  such  expressions  are  entirely  inapplicable  and  do 
not  furnish  even  a  presentable  pretext  for  opposing  proper 
military  preparation. 

It  also  seems  proper,  in  passing,  to  refer  to  the  frame 
of  mind  of  those  who  use  the  word  “militarism”  as  the 
embodiment  of  the  doctrine  of  brute  force  and  loosely 
apply  it  to  any  organized  preparation  of  military  force, 
and  therefore  deprecate  any  adequate  military  prepara¬ 
tion  because  it  is  a  step  in  the  direction  of  the  contemned 
“militarism.”  It  is  perfectly  apparent  to  any  one  who 
approaches  the  matter  with  an  unprejudiced  mind  that 
what  constitutes  undesirable  militarism,  as  distinguished 
from  a  necessary,  proper,  and  adequate  preparation  of 
the  military  resources  of  the  nation,  depends  upon  the 
position  in  which  each  nation  finds  itself,  and  varies  with 


218 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


every  nation  and  with  different  conditions  in  each  nation 
at  different  times.  Every  nation  must  have  adequate 
force  to  protect  itself  from  domestic  insurrections,  to 
enforce  its  laws,  and  to  repel  invasions;  that  is,  every 
nation  that  has  similar  characteristics  to  those  of  a  self- 
respecting  man.  (The  Constitution  obliges  the  United 
States  to  protect  each  State  against  invasion.)  If  it 
prepares  and  maintains  more  military  force  than  is  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  purposes  just  named,  then  it  is  subject  to 
the  conviction,  in  the  public  opinion  of  the  world,  of 
having  embraced  “militarism,”  unless  it  intends  aggres¬ 
sion  for  a  cause  which  the  public  opinion  of  the  world 
conceives  to  be  a  righteous  one.  To  the  extent,  however, 
that  it  confines  its  military  preparedness  to  the  purposes 
first  mentioned,  there  is  neither  warrant  nor  justifica¬ 
tion  in  characterizing  such  action  as  “  militarism.  ”  Those 
who  would  thus  characterize  it  do  so  because  they  have 
reached  the  conclusion  that  a  nation  to-day  can  properly 
dispense  with  a  prepared  military  force,  and  therefore 
they  apply  the  word  to  any  preparation  or  organization 
of  the  military  resources  of  the  nation.  Not  being  able 
to  conceive  how  a  reasonable,  prudent,  patriotic  man  can 
reach  such  a  conclusion,  I  cannot  conceive  any  arguments 
or  statements  that  would  alter  such  a  state  of  mind. 
It  disregards  all  known  facts,  flies  in  the  face  of  all  ex¬ 
perience,  and  must  rest  upon  faith  in  that  which  has 
not  yet  been  made  manifest. 

Whatever  the  future  may  hold  in  the  way  of  agreements 
between  nations,  followed  by  actual  disarmament  thereof, 
of  international  courts  of  arbitration,  and  other  greatly- 
to-be-desired  measures  to  lessen  or  prevent  conflict  be¬ 
tween  nation  and  nation,  we  all  know  that  at  present  these 
conditions  are  not  existing.  We  can  and  will  eagerly 
adapt  ourselves  to  each  beneficent  development  along 


PREPAREDNESS  AGAINST  WAR  219 


these  lines;  but  to  merely  enfeeble  ourselves  in  the 
meantime  would,  in  my  view,  be  unthinkable  folly.  By 
neglecting  and  refusing  to  provide  ourselves  with  the 
necessary  means  of  self-protection  and  self-defense  we 
could  not  hasten  or  in  any  way  favorably  influence  the 
ultimate  results  we  desire  in  these  respects.” 


CHAPTER  XI 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL  ? 

SHERMAN’S  celebrated  declaration  about 
war  has  certainly  been  borne  out  by  what 
has  happened  in  Europe,  and  above  all  in 
Belgium,  during  the  last  four  months.  That  war 
is  hell  I  will  concede  as  heartily  as  any  ultrapacif¬ 
icist.  But  the  only  alternative  to  war,  that  is  to 
hell,  is  the  adoption  of  some  plan  substantially 
like  that  which  I  herein  advocate  and  which  has 
itself  been  called  utopian.  It  is  possible  that  it  is 
utopian  for  the  time  being;  that  is,  that  nations 
are  not  ready  as  yet  to  accept  it.  But  it  is  also 
possible  that  after  this  war  has  come  to  an  end 
the  European  contestants  will  be  sufficiently  so¬ 
bered  to  be  willing  to  consider  some  such  pro¬ 
posal,  and  that  the  United  States  will  abandon 
the  folly  of  the  pacificists  and  be  willing  to  co¬ 
operate  in  some  practical  effort  for  the  only  kind 
of  peace  worth  having,  the  peace  of  justice  and 
righteousness. 

The  proposal  is  not  in  the  least  utopian,  if  by 
utopian  we  understand  something  that  is  theoreti¬ 
cally  desirable  but  impossible.  What  I  propose  is 


220 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


221 


a  working  and  realizable  Utopia.  My  proposal  is 
that  the  efficient  civilized  nations — those  that  are 
efficient  in  war  as  well  as  in  peace — shall  join  in  a 
world  league  for  the  peace  of  righteousness.  This 
means  that  they  shall  by  solemn  covenant  agree 
as  to  their  respective  rights  which  shall  not  be 
questioned;  that  they  shall  agree  that  all  other 
questions  arising  between  them  shall  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  a  court  of  arbitration;  and  that  they 
shall  also  agree — and  here  comes  the  vital  and 
essential  point  of  the  whole  system — to  act  with 
the  combined  military  strength  of  all  of  them 
against  any  recalcitrant  nation,  against  any  na¬ 
tion  which  transgresses  at  the  expense  of  any 
other  nation  the  rights  which  it  is  agreed  shall 
not  be  questioned,  or  which  on  arbitrable  mat¬ 
ters  refuses  to  submit  to  the  decree  of  the  arbitral 
court. 

In  its  essence  this  plan  means  that  there  shall 
be  a  great  international  treaty  for  the  peace  of 
righteousness ;  that  this  treaty  shall  explicitly 
secure  to  each  nation  and  except  from  the  opera¬ 
tions  of  any  international  tribunal  such  matters 
as  its  territorial  integrity,  honor,  and  vital  interest, 
and  shall  guarantee  it  in  the  possession  of  these 
rights;  that  this  treaty  shall  therefore  by  its  own 
terms  explicitly  provide  against  making  foolish 
promises  which  cannot  and  ought  not  to  be  kept; 
that  this  treaty  shall  be  observed  with  absolute 


222 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


good  faith — for  it  is  worse  than  useless  to  enter 
into  treaties  until  their  observance  in  good  faith 
is  efficiently  secured.  Finally,  and  most  impor¬ 
tant,  this  treaty  shall  put  force  back  of  right¬ 
eousness,  shall  provide  a  method  of  securing  by  the 
exercise  of  force  the  observance  of  solemn  inter¬ 
national  obligations.  This  is  to  be  accomplished 
by  all  the  powers  covenanting  to  put  their  whole 
strength  back  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  treaty  ob¬ 
ligations,  including  the  decrees  of  the  court  es¬ 
tablished  under  and  in  accordance  with  the  treaty. 

This  proposal,  therefore,  meets  the  well-found 
objections  against  the  foolish  and  mischievous  all- 
inclusive  arbitration  treaties  recently  negotiated 
by  Mr.  Bryan  under  the  direction  of  President 
Wilson.  These  treaties,  like  the  all-inclusive 
arbitration  treaties  which  President  Taft  started 
to  negotiate,  explicitly  include  as  arbitrable,  or  as 
proper  subjects  for  action  by  joint  commissions, 
questions  of  honor  and  of  vital  national  interest. 
No  such  provision  should  be  made.  No  such  pro¬ 
vision  is  made  as  among  private  individuals  in  any 
civilized  community.  No  man  is  required  to  “ar¬ 
bitrate  ’  ’  a  slap  in  the  face  or  an  insult  to  his  wife ; 
no  man  is  expected  to  ‘  ‘  arbitrate  ’  ’  with  a  burglar 
or  a  highwayman.  If  in  private  life  one  indi¬ 
vidual  takes  action  which  immediately  jeopard¬ 
izes  the  life  or  limb  or  even  the  bodily  well-being 
and  the  comfort  of  another,  the  wronged  party 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


223 


does  not  have  to  go  into  any  arbitration  with  the 
wrong-doer.  On  the  contrary,  the  policeman  or 
constable  or  sheriff  immediately  and  summarily 
arrests  the  wrong-doer.  The  subsequent  trial  is 
not  in  the  nature  of  arbitration  at  all.  It  is  in 
the  nature  of  a  criminal  proceeding.  The  wronged 
man  is  merely  a  witness  and  not  necessarily  an 
essential  witness.  For  example,  if,  in  the  streets 
of  New  York,  one  man  assaults  another  or  steals 
his  watch,  and  a  policeman  is  not  near  by,  the 
wronged  man  is  not  only  justified  in  knocking 
down  the  assailant  or  thief,  but  fails  in  his  duty  if 
he  does  not  so  act.  If  a  policeman  is  near  by,  the 
policeman  promptly  arrests  the  wrong-doer.  The 
magistrate  does  not  arbitrate  the  question  of  prop¬ 
erty  rights  in  the  watch  nor  anything  about  the 
assault.  He  satisfies  himself  as  to  the  facts  and 
delivers  judgment  against  the  offender. 

A  covenant  between  the  United  States  and  any 
other  power  to  arbitrate  all  questions,  including 
those  involving  national  honor  and  interest, 
neither  could  nor  ought  to  be  kept.  Such  a  cov¬ 
enant  will  be  harmless  only  if  no  such  questions 
ever  arise.  Now,  all  the  worth  of  promises  made 
in  the  abstract  lies  in  the  way  in  which  they  are 
fulfilled  in  the  concrete.  The  Wilson-Bryan  ar¬ 
bitration  treaties  are  to  be  tested  in  this  manner. 
The  theory  is,  of  course,  that  these  treaties  are  to 
be  made  with  all  nations,  and  this  is  correct,  be- 


224 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


cause  it  would  be  a  far  graver  thing  to  refuse  to 
make  them  with  some  nations  than  to  refuse  to 
enter  into  them  with  any  nation  at  all.  The  pro¬ 
posal  is,  in  effect,  and  disregarding  verbiage,  that 
all  questions  shall  be  arbitrated  or  settled  by  the 
action  of  a  joint  commission — questions  really 
vital  to  us  would,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  be  settled 
adversely  to  us  pending  such  action.  There  are 
many  such  questions  which  in  the  concrete  we 
would  certainly  not  arbitrate.  I  mention  one, 
only  as  an  example.  Do  Messrs.  Wilson  and 
Bryan,  or  do  they  not,  mean  to  arbitrate,  if 
Japan  should  so  desire,  the  question  whether 
Japanese  laborers  are  to  be  allowed  to  come  in 
unlimited  numbers  to  these  shores  ?  If  they  do 
mean  this,  let  them  explicitly  state  that  fact — 
merely  as  an  illustration — to  the  Senate  com¬ 
mittee,  so  that  the  Senate  committee  shall  under¬ 
stand  what  it  is  doing  when  it  ratifies  these  treaties. 
If  they  do  not  mean  this,  then  let  them  promptly 
withdraw  all  the  treaties  so  as  not  to  expose  us  to 
the  charge  of  hypocrisy,  of  making  believe  to  do 
what  we  have  no  intention  of  doing,  and  of  mak¬ 
ing  promises  which  we  have  no  intention  of  keep¬ 
ing.  I  have  mentioned  one  issue  only;  but  there 
are  scores  of  other  issues  which  I  could  mention 
which  this  government  would  under  no  circum¬ 
stances  agree  to  arbitrate. 

In  the  same  way,  we  must  explicitly  recognize 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


225 


that  all  the  peace  congresses  and  the  like  that 
have  been  held  of  recent  years  have  done  no  good 
whatever  to  the  cause  of  world  peace.  All  their 
addresses  and  resolutions  about  arbitration  and 
disarmament  and  such  matters  have  been  on  the 
whole  slightly  worse  than  useless.  Disregarding 
the  Hague  conventions,  it  is  the  literal  fact  that 
none  of  the  peace  congresses  that  have  been  held 
for  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years — to  speak  only 
of  those  of  which  I  myself  know  the  workings — 
have  accomplished  the  smallest  particle  of  good. 
In  so  far  as  they  have  influenced  free,  liberty- 
loving,  and  self-respecting  nations  not  to  take 
measures  for  their  own  defense  they  have  been 
positively  mischievous.  In  no  respect  have  they 
achieved  anything  worth  achieving ;  and  the  pres¬ 
ent  world  war  proves  this  beyond  the  possibility 
of  serious  question. 

The  Hague  conventions  stand  by  themselves. 
They  have  accomplished  a  certain  amount — al¬ 
though  only  a  small  amount — of  actual  good. 
This  was  in  so  far  as  they  furnished  means  by 
which  nations  which  did  not  wish  to  quarrel  were 
able  to  settle  international  disputes  not  involving 
their  deepest  interests.  Questions  between  na¬ 
tions  continually  arise  which  are  not  of  first-class 
importance;  which,  for  instance,  refer  to  some 
illegal  act  by  or  against  a  fishing  schooner,  to 
some  difficulty  concerning  contracts,  to  some 


226 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


question  of  the  interpretation  of  a  minor  clause 
in  a  treaty,  or  to  the  sporadic  action  of  some  hot¬ 
headed  or  panic-struck  official.  In  these  cases, 
where  neither  nation  wishes  to  go  to  war,  the 
Hague  court  has  furnished  an  easy  method  for 
the  settlement  of  the  dispute  without  war.  This 
does  not  mark  a  very  great  advance;  but  it  is  an 
advance,  and  was  worth  making. 

The  fact  that  it  is  the  only  advance  that  the 
Hague  court  has  accomplished  makes  the  hys¬ 
terical  outbursts  formerly  indulged  in  by  the 
ultrapacificists  concerning  it  seem  in  retrospect 
exceedingly  foolish.  While  I  had  never  shared 
the  hopes  of  these  ultrapacificists,  I  had  hoped 
for  more  substantial  good  than  has  actually 
come  from  the  Hague  conventions.  This  was 
because  I  accept  promises  as  meaning  some¬ 
thing.  The  ultrapacificists,  whether  from  ti¬ 
midity,  from  weakness,  or  from  sheer  folly,  seem 
wholly  unable  to  understand  that  the  fulfil¬ 
ment  of  a  promise  has  anything  to  do  with  mak¬ 
ing  the  promise.  The  most  striking  example 
that  could  possibly  be  furnished  has  been  fur- 
ished  by  Belgium.  Under  my  direction  as  Presi¬ 
dent,  the  United  States  signed  the  Hague  con¬ 
ventions.  All  the  nations  engaged  in  the  present 
war  signed  these  conventions,  although  one  or 
two  of  the  nations  qualified  their  acceptance, 
or  withheld  their  signatures  to  certain  articles. 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


227 


This,  however,  did  not  in  the  least  relieve  the 
signatory  powers  from  the  duty  to  guarantee 
one  another  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  secured  by  the  conventions.  To 
make  this  guarantee  worth  anything,  it  was,  of 
course,  necessary  actively  to  enforce  it  against 
any  power  breaking  the  convention  or  acting 
against  its  clear  purpose.  To  make  it  really 
effective  it  should  be  enforced  as  quickly  against 
non-signatory  as  against  signatory  powers;  for 
to  give  a  power  free  permission  to  do  wrong  if 
it  did  not  sign  would  put  a  premium  on  non¬ 
signing,  so  far  as  big,  aggressive  powers  are  con¬ 
cerned. 

I  authorized  the  signature  of  the  United  States 
to  these  conventions.  They  forbid  the  vio¬ 
lation  of  neutral  territory,  and,  of  course,  the 
subjugation  of  unoffending  neutral  nations,  as 
Belgium  has  been  subjugated.  They  forbid  such 
destruction  as  that  inflicted  on  Louvain,  Dinant, 
and  other  towns  in  Belgium,  the  burning  of  their 
priceless  public  libraries  and  wonderful  halls  and 
churches,  and  the  destruction  of  cathedrals  such 
as  that  at  Rheims.  They  forbid  the  infliction  of 
heavy  pecuniary  penalties  and  the  taking  of 
severe  punitive  measures  at  the  expense  of  ci¬ 
vilian  populations.  They  forbid  the  bombard¬ 
ment — of  course  including  the  dropping  of  bombs 
from  aeroplanes — of  unfortified  cities  and  of  cities 


228 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


whose  defenses  were  not  at  the  moment  attacked. 
They  forbid  such  actions  as  have  been  committed 
against  various  cities,  Belgian,  French,  and  En¬ 
glish,  not  for  military  reason  but  for  the  purpose 
of  terrorizing  the  civilian  population  by  killing 
and  wounding  men,  women,  and  children  who 
were  non-combatants.  All  of  these  offenses  have 
been  committed  by  Germany.  I  took  the  action 
I  did  in  directing  these  conventions  to  be  signed 
on  the  theory  and  with  the  belief  that  the  United 
States  intended  to  live  up  to  its  obligations, 
and  that  our  people  understood  that  living  up 
to  solemn  obligations,  like  any  other  serious 
performance  of  duty,  means  willingness  to  make 
effort  and  to  incur  risk.  If  I  had  for  one  mo¬ 
ment  supposed  that  signing  these  Hague  con¬ 
ventions  meant  literally  nothing  whatever  be¬ 
yond  the  expression  of  a  pious  wish  which  any 
power  was  at  liberty  to  disregard  with  impunity, 
in  accordance  with  the  dictation  of  self-interest, 
I  would  certainly  not  have  permitted  the  United 
States  to  be  a  party  to  such  a  mischievous  farce. 
President  Wilson  and  Secretary  Bryan,  how¬ 
ever,  take  the  view  that  when  the  United  States 
assumes  obligations  in  order  to  secure  small  and 
unoffending  neutral  nations  or  non-combatants 
generally  against  hideous  wrong,  its  action  is  not 
predicated  on  any  intention  to  make  the  guar¬ 
antee  effective.  They  take  the  view  that  when 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


229 


we  are  asked  to  redeem  in  the  concrete,  promises 
we  made  in  the  abstract,  our  duty  is  to  disre¬ 
gard  our  obligations  and  to  preserve  ignoble  peace 
for  ourselves  by  regarding  with  cold-blooded  and 
timid  indifference  the  most  frightful  ravages  of 
war  committed  at  the  expense  of  a  peace¬ 
ful  and  unoffending  country.  This  is  the  cult 
of  cowardice.  That  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Bryan 
profess  it  and  put  it  in  action  would  be  of  small 
consequence  if  only  they  themselves  were  con¬ 
cerned.  The  importance  of  their  action  is  that  it 
commits  the  United  States. 

Elaborate  technical  arguments  have  been  made 
to  justify  this  timid  and  selfish  abandonment  of 
duty,  this  timid  and  selfish  failure  to  work  for  the 
world  peace  of  righteousness,  by  President  Wilson 
and  Secretary  Bryan.  No  sincere  believer  in  dis¬ 
interested  and  self-sacrificing  work  for  peace  can 
justify  it;  and  work  for  peace  will  never  be  worth 
much  unless  accompanied  by  courage,  effort,  and 
self-sacrifice.  Yet  those  very  apostles  of  pacifi¬ 
cism  who,  when  they  can  do  so  with  safety,  scream 
loudest  for  peace,  have  made  themselves  objects 
of  contemptuous  derision  by  keeping  silence  in 
this  crisis,  or  even  by  praising  Mr.  Wilson  and 
Mr.  Bryan  for  having  thus  abandoned  the  cause 
of  peace.  They  are  supported  by  the  men  who 
insist  that  all  that  we  are  concerned  with  is  es¬ 
caping  even  the  smallest  risk  that  might  follow 


230 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


upon  the  performance  of  duty  to  any  one  except 
ourselves.  This  last  is  not  a  very  exalted  plea. 
It  is,  however,  defensible.  But  if,  as  a  nation,  we 
intend  to  act  in  accordance  with  it,  we  must  never 
promise  to  do  anything  for  any  one  else. 

The  technical  arguments  as  to  the  Hague  con¬ 
ventions  not  requiring  us  to  act  will  at  once  be 
brushed  aside  by  any  man  who  honestly  and  in 
good  faith  faces  the  situation.  Either  the  Hague 
conventions  meant  something  or  else  they  meant 
nothing.  If,  in  the  event  of  their  violation,  none 
of  the  signatory  powers  were  even  to  protest,  then 
of  course  they  meant  nothing ;  and  it  was  an  act  of 
unspeakable  silliness  to  enter  into  them.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  they  meant  anything  whatsoever, 
it  was  the  duty  of  the  United  States,  as  the  most 
powerful,  or  at  least  the  richest  and  most  populous, 
neutral  nation,  to  take  action  for  upholding  them 
when  their  violation  brought  such  appalling  dis¬ 
aster  to  Belgium.  There  is  no  escape  from  this 
alternative. 

The  first  essential  to  working  out  successfully 
any  scheme  whatever  for  world  peace  is  to  under¬ 
stand  that  nothing  can  be  accomplished  unless 
the  powers  entering  into  the  agreement  act  in 
precisely  the  reverse  way  from  that  in  which 
President  Wilson  and  Secretary  Bryan  have  acted 
as  regards  the  Hague  conventions  and  the  all- 
inclusive  arbitration  treaties  during  the  past  six 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


231 


months.  The  prime  fact  to  consider  in  securing 
any  peace  agreement  worth  entering  into,  or  that 
will  have  any  except  a  mischievous  effect,  is  that 
the  nations  entering  into  the  agreement  shall 
make  no  promises  that  ought  not  to  be  made, 
that  they  shall  in  good  faith  live  up  to  the  prom¬ 
ises  that  are  made,  and  that  they  shall  put  their 
whole  strength  unitedly  back  of  these  promises 
against  any  nation  which  refuses  to  carry  out  the 
agreement,  or  which,  if  it  has  not  made  the  agree¬ 
ment,  nevertheless  violates  the  principles  which 
the  agreement  enforces.  In  other  words,  interna¬ 
tional  agreements  intended  to  produce  peace  must 
proceed  much  along  the  lines  of  the  Hague  con¬ 
ventions;  but  a  power  signing  them,  as  the  United 
States  signed  the  Hague  conventions,  must  do  so 
with  the  intention  in  good  faith  to  see  that  they 
are  carried  out,  and  to  use  force  to  accomplish 
this,  if  necessary. 

To  violate  these  conventions,  to  violate  neu¬ 
trality  treaties,  as  Germany  has  done  in  the  case 
of  Belgium,  is  a  dreadful  wrong.  It  repre¬ 
sents  the  gravest  kind  of  international  wrong¬ 
doing.  But  it  is  really  not  quite  so  contempt¬ 
ible,  it  does  not  show  such  short-sighted  and 
timid  inefficiency,  and,  above  all,  such  selfish  in¬ 
difference  to  the  cause  of  permanent  and  righteous 
peace  as  has  been  shown  by  us  of  the  United  States 
(thanks  to  President  Wilson  and  Secretary  Bryan) 


232 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


in  refusing  to  fulfil  our  solemn  obligations  by 
taking  whatever  action  was  necessary  in  order 
to  clear  our  skirts  from  the  guilt  of  tame  acquies¬ 
cence  in  a  wrong  which  we  had  solemnly  under¬ 
taken  to  oppose. 

It  has  been  a  matter  of  very  real  regret  to  me 
to  have  to  speak  in  the  way  I  have  felt  obliged 
to  speak  as  to  German  wrong-doing  in  Belgium, 
because  so  many  of  my  friends,  not  only  Ger¬ 
mans,  but  Americans  of  German  birth  and  even 
Americans  of  German  descent,  have  felt  aggrieved 
at  my  position.  As  regards  my  friends,  the 
Americans  of  German  birth  or  descent,  I  can 
only  say  that  they  are  in  honor  bound  to  regard 
all  international  matters  solely  from  the  stand¬ 
point  of  the  interest  of  the  United  States,  and 
of  the  demands  of  a  lofty  international  morality. 
I  recognize  no  divided  allegiance  in  American 
citizenship.  As  regards  Germany,  my  stand 
is  for  the  real  interest  of  the  mass  of  the  Ger¬ 
man  people.  If  the  German  people  as  a  whole 
would  only  look  at  it  rightly,  they  would  see 
that  my  position  is  predicated  upon  the  assump¬ 
tion  that  we  ought  to  act  as  unhesitatingly  in 
favor  of  Germany  if  Germany  were  wronged  as 
in  favor  of  Belgium  when  Belgium  is  wronged. 

There  are  in  Germany  a  certain  number  of 
Germans  who  adopt  the  Treitschke  and  Bemhardi 
view  of  Germany’s  destiny  and  of  international 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


233 


morality  generally.  These  men  are  fundamen¬ 
tally  exactly  as  hostile  to  America  as  to  all  other 
foreign  powers.  They  look  down  with  con¬ 
tempt  upon  Americans  as  well  as  upon  all  other 
foreigners.  They  regard  it  as  their  right  to  sub¬ 
due  these  inferior  beings.  They  acknowledge 
toward  them  no  duty,  in  the  sense  that  duty  is 
understood  between  equals.  I  call  the  attention 
of  my  fellow  Americans  of  German  origin  who 
wish  this  country  to  act  toward  Belgium,  not  in 
accordance  with  American  traditions,  interests, 
and  ideals,  but  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
German  sympathies  of  certain  citizens  of  Ger¬ 
man  descent,  to  the  statement  of  Treitschke  that 
‘  ‘  to  civilization  at  large  the  [Americanizing]  of  the 
German-Americans  means  a  heavy  loss.  Among 
Germans  there  can  no  longer  be  any  question 
that  the  civilization  of  mankind  suffers  every 
time  a  German  is  transformed  into  a  Yankee.” 

I  do  not  for  one  moment  believe  that  the  men 
who  follow  Treitschke  in  his  hatred  of  and  con¬ 
tempt  for  all  non-Germans,  and  Bernhardi  in  his 
contempt  for  international  morality,  are  a  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  German  people  or  even  a  very  large 
minority.  I  think  that  the  great  majority  of  the 
Germans,  who  have  approved  Germany’s  action 
toward  Belgium,  have  been  influenced  by  the  feel¬ 
ing  that  it  was  a  vital  necessity  in  order  to  save 
Germany  from  destruction  and  subjugation  by 


234 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


France  and  Russia,  perhaps  assisted  by  England. 
Fear  of  national  destruction  will  prompt  men  to 
do  almost  anything,  and  the  proper  remedy  for 
outsiders  to  work  for  is  the  removal  of  the  fear. 
If  Germany  were  absolutely  freed  from  danger  of 
aggression  on  her  eastern  and  western  frontiers,  I 
believe  that  German  public  sentiment  would  refuse 
to  sanction  such  acts  as  those  against  Belgium. 
The  only  effective  way  to  free  it  from  this  fear  is 
to  have  outside  nations  like  the  United  States  in 
good  faith  undertake  the  obligation  to  defend 
Germany’s  honor  and  territorial  integrity,  if  at¬ 
tacked,  exactly  as  they  would  defend  the  honor 
and  territorial  integrity  of  Belgium,  or  of  France, 
Russia,  Japan,  or  England,  or  any  other  well- 
behaved,  civilized  power,  if  attacked. 

This  can  only  be  achieved  by  some  such  world 
league  of  peace  as  that  which  I  advocate.  Most 
important  of  all,  it  can  only  be  achieved  by  the 
willingness  and  ability  of  great,  free  powers  to 
put  might  back  of  right,  to  make  their  protest 
against  wrong-doing  effective  by,  if  necessary, 
punishing  the  wrong-doer.  It  is  this  fact  which 
makes  the  clamor  of  the  pacificists  for  “peace, 
peace,”  without  any  regard  to  righteousness,  so 
abhorrent  to  all  right-thinking  people.  There  are 
multitudes  of  professional  pacificists  in  the  United 
States,  and  of  well-meaning  but  ill-informed  per¬ 
sons  who  sympathize  with  them  from  ignorance. 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


235 


There  are  not  a  few  astute  persons,  bankers  of 
foreign  birth,  and  others,  who  wish  to  take  sinister 
advantage  of  the  folly  of  these  persons,  in  the  in¬ 
terest  of  Germany.  All  of  these  men  clamor  for 
immediate  peace.  They  wish  the  United  States 
to  take  action  for  immediate  peace  or  for  a  truce, 
under  conditions  designed  to  leave  Belgium  with 
her  wrongs  unredressed  and  in  the  possession  of 
Germany.  They  strive  to  bring  about  a  peace 
which  would  contain  within  itself  the  elements  of 
frightful  future  disaster,  by  making  no  effective 
provision  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  such  wrong 
doing  as  has  been  inflicted  upon  Belgium.  All  ol 
the  men  advocating  such  action,  including  the 
professional  pacificists,  the  big  business  men 
largely  of  foreign  birth,  and  the  well-meaning  but 
feeble-minded  creatures  among  their  allies,  and 
including  especially  all  those  who  from  sheer 
timidity  or  weakness  shrink  from  duty,  occupy 
a  thoroughly  base  and  improper  position.  The 
peace  advocates  of  this  stamp  stand  on  an  exact 
par  with  men  who,  if  there  was  an  epidemic  of 
lawlessness  in  New  York,  should  come  together 
to  demand  the  immediate  cessation  of  all  activity 
by  the  police,  and  should  propose  to  substitute 
for  it  a  request  that  the  highwaymen,  white 
slavers,  black-handers,  and  burglars  cease  their 
activities  for  the  moment  on  condition  of  retaining 
undisturbed  possession  of  the  ill-gotten  spoils  they 


236 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


had  already  acquired.  The  only  effective  friend 
of  peace  in  a  big  city  is  the  man  who  makes  the 
police  force  thoroughly  efficient,  who  tries  to  re¬ 
move  the  causes  of  crime,  but  who  unhesitatingly 
insists  upon  the  punishment  of  criminals.  Pacific¬ 
ists  who  believe  that  all  use  of  force  in  inter¬ 
national  matters  can  be  abolished  will  do  well  to 
remember  that  the  only  efficient  police  forces  are 
those  whose  members  are  scrupulously  careful  not 
to  commit  acts  of  violence  when  it  is  possible  to 
avoid  them,  but  who  are  willing  and  able,  when  the 
occasion  arises,  to  subdue  the  worst  kind  of  wrong¬ 
doers  by  means  of  the  only  argument  that  wrong¬ 
doers  respect,  namely,  successful  force.  What  is 
thus  true  in  private  life  is  similarly  true  in  inter¬ 
national  affairs. 

No  man  can  venture  to  state  the  exact  details 
that  should  be  followed  in  securing  such  a  world 
league  for  the  peace  of  righteousness.  But,  not 
to  leave  the  matter  nebulous,  I  submit  the  fol¬ 
lowing  plan.  It  would  prove  entirely  workable, 
if  nations  entered  into  it  with  good  faith,  and  if 
they  treated  their  obligations  under  it  in  the  spirit 
in  which  the  United  States  treated  its  obligations 
as  regarded  the  independence  of  Cuba,  giving 
good  government  to  the  Philippines,  and  build¬ 
ing  the  Panama  Canal;  the  same  spirit  in  which 
England  acted  when  the  neutrality  of  Belgium 
was  violated. 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


237 


All  the  civilized  powers  which  are  able  and 
willing  to  furnish  and  to  use  force,  when  force  is 
required  to  back  up  righteousness — and  only  the 
civilized  powers  who  possess  virile  manliness  of 
character  and  the  willingness  to  accept  risk  and 
labor  when  necessary  to  the  performance  of  duty 
are  entitled  to  be  considered  in  this  matter — 
should  join  to  create  an  international  tribunal 
and  to  provide  rules  in  accordance  with  which 
that  tribunal  should  act.  These  rules  would  have 
to  accept  the  status  quo  at  some  given  period;  for 
the  endeavor  to  redress  all  historical  wrongs 
would  throw  us  back  into  chaos.  They  would 
lay  down  the  rule  that  the  territorial  integrity  of 
each  nation  was  inviolate;  that  it  was  to  be  guar¬ 
anteed  absolutely  its  sovereign  rights  in  certain 
particulars,  including,  for  instance,  the  right  to 
decide  the  terms  on  which  immigrants  should  be 
admitted  to  its  borders  for  purposes  of  residence, 
citizenship,  or  business;  in  short,  all  its  rights  in 
matters  affecting  its  honor  and  vital  interest. 
Each  nation  should  be  guaranteed  against  hav¬ 
ing  any  of  these  specified  rights  infringed  upon. 
They  would  not  be  made  arbitrable,  any  more 
than  an  individual’s  right  to  life  and  limb  is 
made  arbitrable;  they  would  be  mutually  guar¬ 
anteed.  All  other  matters  that  could  arise  be¬ 
tween  these  nations  should  be  settled  by  the  in¬ 
ternational  court.  The  judges  should  act  not  as 


238 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


national  representatives,  but  purely  as  judges, 
and  in  any  given  case  it  would  probably  be  well 
to  choose  them  by  lot,  excluding,  of  course,  the 
representatives  of  the  powers  whose  interests 
were  concerned.  Then,  and  most  important,  the 
nations  should  severally  guarantee  to  use  their 
entire  military  force,  if  necessary,  against  any 
nation  which  defied  the  decrees  of  the  tribunal 
or  which  violated  any  of  the  rights  which  in  the 
rules  it  was  expressly  stipulated  should  be  re¬ 
served  to  the  several  nations,  the  rights  to  their 
territorial  integrity  and  the  like.  Under  such 
conditions — to  make  matters  concrete — Belgium 
would  be  safe  from  any  attack  such  as  that  made 
by  Germany,  and  Germany  would  be  relieved 
from  the  haunting  fear  its  people  now  have  lest 
the  Russians  and  the  French,  backed  by  other 
nations,  smash  the  empire  and  its  people. 

In  addition  to  the  contracting  powers,  a  cer¬ 
tain  number  of  outside  nations  should  be  named 
as  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  court.  These 
nations  should  be  chosen  from  those  which  are 
as  civilized  and  well-behaved  as  the  great  con¬ 
tracting  nations,  but  which,  for  some  reason  or 
other,  are  unwilling  or  unable  to  guarantee  to  help 
execute  the  decrees  of  the  court  by  force.  They 
would  have  no  right  to  take  part  in  the  nomina¬ 
tion  of  judges,  for  no  people  are  entitled  to  do 
anything  toward  establishing  a  court  unless  they 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


239 


are  able  and  willing  to  face  the  risk,  labor,  and  self- 
sacrifice  necessary  in  order  to  put  police  power 
behind  the  court.  But  they  would  be  treated 
with  exact  justice;  and  in  the  event  of  any  one  of 
the  great  contracting  powers  having  trouble  with 
one  of  them,  they  would  be  entitled  to  go  into 
court,  have  a  decision  rendered,  and  see  the  de¬ 
cision  supported,  precisely  as  in  the  case  of  a  dis¬ 
pute  between  any  two  of  the  great  contracting 
powers  themselves. 

No  power  should  be  admitted  into  the  first 
circle,  that  of  the  contracting  powers,  unless  it  is 
civilized,  well-behaved,  and  able  to  do  its  part  in 
enforcing  the  decrees  of  the  court.  China,  for 
instance,  could  not  be  admitted,  nor  could  Tur¬ 
key,  although  for  different  reasons,  whereas  such 
nations  as  Germany,  France,  England,  Italy, 
Russia,  the  United  States,  Japan,  Brazil,  the 
Argentine,  Chile,  Uruguay,  Switzerland,  Holland, 
Sweden,  Norway,  Denmark,  and  Belgium  would 
all  be  entitled  to  go  in.  If  China  continues  to 
behave  as  well  as  it  has  during  the  last  few 
years  it  might  soon  go  into  the  second  line  of 
powers  which  would  be  entitled  to  the  benefits  of 
the  court,  although  not  entitled  to  send  judges  to 
it.  Mexico  would,  of  course,  not  be  entitled  to 
admission  at  present  into  either  circle.  At  pres¬ 
ent  every  European  power  with  the  exception  of 
Turkey  would  be  so  entitled;  but  sixty  years 


240 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


ago  the  kingdom  of  Naples,  for  instance,  would 
not  have  been  entitled  to  come  in,  and  there  are 
various  South  American  communities  which  at 
the  present  time  would  not  be  entitled  to  come  in ; 
and,  of  course,  this  would  at  present  be  true  of 
most  independent  Asiatic  states  and  of  all  inde¬ 
pendent  African  states.  The  council  should  have 
power  to  exclude  any  nation  which  completely  fell 
from  civilization,  as  Mexico,  partly  with  the  able 
assistance  of  President  Wilson’s  administration, 
has  fallen  during  the  past  few  years.  There  are 
various  South  and  Central  American  states  which 
have  never  been  entitled  to  the  consideration  as  civ¬ 
ilized,  orderly,  self-respecting  powers  which  would 
entitle  them  to  be  treated  on  terms  of  equality  in 
the  fashion  indicated.  As  regards  these  dis¬ 
orderly  and  weak  outsiders,  it  might  well  be  that 
after  a  while  some  method  would  be  devised  to 
deal  with  them  by  common  agreement  of  the  civi¬ 
lized  powers;  but  until  this  was  devised  and  put 
into  execution  they  wrould  have  to  be  left  as  at 
present. 

Of  course,  grave  difficulties  would  be  encoun¬ 
tered  in  devising  such  a  plan  and  in  administer¬ 
ing  it  afterward,  and  no  human  being  can  guar¬ 
antee  that  it  would  absolutely  succeed.  But  I 
believe  that  it  could  be  made  to  work  and  that  it 
would  mark  a  very  great  improvement  over  what 
obtains  now.  At  this  moment  there  is  hell  in 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


241 


Belgium  and  hell  in  Mexico;  and  the  ultrapacif¬ 
icists  in  this  country  have  their  full  share  of  the 
responsibility  for  this  hell.  They  are  not  primary 
factors  in  producing  it.  They  lack  the  virile 
power  to  be  primary  factors  in  producing  anything, 
good  or  evil,  that  needs  daring  and  endurance. 
But  they  are  secondary  factors;  for  the  man  who 
tamely  acquiesces  in  wrong-doing  is  a  secondary 
factor  in  producing  that  wrong-doing.  Most  cer¬ 
tainly  the  proposed  plan  would  be  dependent  upon 
reasonable  good  faith  for  its  successful  working, 
but  this  is  only  to  say  what  is  also  true  of  every 
human  institution.  Under  the  proposed  plan  there 
would  be  a  strong  likelihood  of  bettering  world 
conditions.  If  it  is  a  Utopia,  it  is  a  Utopia  of  a 
very  practical  kind. 

Such  a  plan  is  as  yet  in  the  realm  of  mere  specu¬ 
lation.  At  present  the  essential  thing  for  each 
self-respecting,  liberty-loving  nation  to  do  is  to 
put  itself  in  position  to  defend  its  own  rights.  Re¬ 
cently  President  Wilson,  in  his  message  to  Con¬ 
gress,  has  announced  that  we  are  in  no  danger  and 
will  not  be  in  any  danger;  and  ex-President  Taft 
has  stated  that  the  awakening  of  interest  in  our 
defenses  indicates  “mild  hysteria.”  Such  utter¬ 
ances  show  fatuous  indifference  to  the  teachings 
of  history.  They  represent  precisely  the  attitude 
which  a  century  ago  led  to  the  burning  of  Wash¬ 
ington  by  a  small  expeditionary  hostile  force,  and 
to  such  paralyzing  disaster  in  war  as  almost  to 


242 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


bring  about  the  break-up  of  the  Union.  In  his 
message  President  Wilson  justifies  a  refusal  to 
build  up  our  navy  by  asking — as  if  we  were  discuss¬ 
ing  a  question  of  pure  metaphysics — “When  will 
the  experts  tell  us  just  what  kind  of  ships  we  should 
construct — and  when  will  they  be  right  for  ten 
years  together?  Who  shall  tell  us  now  what 
sort  of  navy  to  build?”  and  actually  adds,  after 
posing  and  leaving  unanswered  these  questions: 
“I  turn  away  from  the  subject.  It  is  not  new. 
There  is  no  need  to  discuss  it.”  Lovers  of  Dickens 
who  turn  to  the  second  paragraph  of  chapter  XI 
of  “Our  Mutual  Friend”  will  find  this  attitude  of 
President  Wilson  toward  preparedness  interest¬ 
ingly  paralleled  by  the  attitude  Mr.  Podsnap  took 
in  “getting  rid  of  disagreeables”  by  the  use  of  the 
phrases,  “I  don’t  want  to  know  about  them!  I 
refuse  to  discuss  them!  I  don’t  admit  them!”  thus 
“clearing  the  world  of  its  most  difficult  problems 
by  sweeping  them  behind  him.  For  they  affronted 
him.”  If  during  the  last  ten  years  England’s  at¬ 
titude  toward  preparedness  for  war  and  the  up¬ 
building  of  her  navy  had  been  determined  by 
statesmanship  such  as  is  set  forth  in  these  ut¬ 
terances  of  President  Wilson,  the  island  would 
now  be  trampled  into  bloody  mire,  as  Belgium 
has  been  trampled.  If  Germany  had  followed 
such  advice — or  rather  no  advice — during  the  last 
ten  years,  she  would  now  have  been  wholly  un¬ 
able  so  much  as  to  assert  her  rights  anywhere. 


UTOPIA  OR  HELL? 


243 


Let  us  immediately  make  our  navy  thoroughly 
efficient;  and  this  can  only  be  done  by  reversing 
the  policy  that  President  Wilson  has  followed  for 
twenty-two  months.  Recently  Secretary  Daniels 
has  said,  as  quoted  by  the  press,  that  he  intends 
to  provide  for  the  safety  of  both  the  Atlantic  and 
Pacific  coasts  by  dividing  our  war  fleet  between 
the  two  oceans.  Such  division  of  the  fleet,  having 
in  view  the  disaster  which  exactly  similar  action 
brought  on  Russia  ten  years  ago,  would  be 
literally  a  crime  against  the  nation.  Neither  our 
foreign  affairs  nor  our  naval  affairs  can  be  satis¬ 
factorily  managed  when  the  President  is  willing 
to  put  in  their  respective  departments  gentlemen 
like  Messrs.  Bryan  and  Daniels.  President  Wil¬ 
son  would  not  have  ventured  to  make  either  of 
these  men  head  of  the  Treasury  Department, 
because  he  would  thereby  have  offended  the  con¬ 
crete  interests  of  American  business  men.  But  as 
Secretary  of  State  and  Secretary  of  the  Navy  the 
harm  they  do  is  to  the  country  as  a  whole.  No 
concrete  interest  is  immediately  affected;  and,  as 
it  is  only  our  own  common  welfare  in  the  future, 
only  the  welfare  of  our  children,  only  the  honor 
and  interest  of  the  United  States  through  the 
generations  that  are  concerned,  it  is  deemed  safe 
to  disregard  this  welfare  and  to  take  chances  with 
our  national  honor  and  interest. 


CHAPTER  XII 

SUMMING  UP 

BLESSED  are  the  peacemakers,”  not  merely 
the  peace  lovers ;  for  action  is  what  makes 
thought  operative  and  valuable.  Above 
all,  the  peace  prattlers  are  in  no  way  blessed. 
On  the  contrary,  only  mischief  has  sprung  from 
the  activities  of  the  professional  peace  prattlers, 
the  ultrapacificists,  who,  with  the  shrill  clamor  of 
eunuchs,  preach  the  gospel  of  the  milk  and  water 
of  virtue  and  scream  that  belief  in  the  efficacy  of 
diluted  moral  mush  is  essential  to  salvation. 

It  seems  necessary  every  time  I  state  my  posi¬ 
tion  to  guard  against  the  counterwords  of  wilful 
folly  by  reiterating  that  my  disagreement  with 
the  peace-at-any-price  men,  the  ultrapacificists,  is 
not  in  the  least  because  they  favor  peace.  I  ob¬ 
ject  to  them,  first,  because  they  have  proved 
themselves  futile  and  impotent  in  working  for 
peace,  and,  second,  because  they  commit  what  is 
not  merely  the  capital  error  but  the  crime  against 
morality  of  failing  to  uphold  righteousness  as  the 

244 


SUMMING  UP 


245 


all-important  end  toward  which  we  should  strive. 
In  actual  practice  they  advocate  the  peace  of  un¬ 
righteousness  just  as  fervently  as  they  advocate 
the  peace  of  righteousness.  I  have  as  little  sym¬ 
pathy  as  they  have  for  the  men  who  deify  mere 
brutal  force,  who  insist  that  power  justifies  wrong¬ 
doing,  and  who  declare  that  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  international  morality.  But  the  ultra¬ 
pacificists  really  play  into  the  hands  of  these 
men.  To  condemn  equally  might  which  backs 
right  and  might  which  overthrows  right  is  to 
render  positive  service  to  wrong-doers.  It  is  as 
if  in  private  life  we  condemned  alike  both  the 
policeman  and  the  dynamiter  or  black-hand  kid¬ 
napper  or  white  slaver  whom  he  has  arrested. 
To  denounce  the  nation  that  wages  war  in  self- 
defense,  or  from  a  generous  desire  to  relieve  the 
oppressed,  in  the  same  terms  in  which  we  de¬ 
nounce  war  waged  in  a  spirit  of  greed  or  wanton 
folly  stands  on  an  exact  par  with  denouncing 
equally  a  murderer  and  the  policeman  who,  at 
peril  of  his  life  and  by  force  of  arms,  arrests  the 
murderer.  In  each  case  the  denunciation  denotes 
not  loftiness  of  soul  but  weakness  both  of  mind 
and  of  morals. 

In  a  capital  book,  by  a  German,  Mr.  Edmund 
von  Mach,  entitled  “What  Germany  Wants,’’ 
there  is  the  following  noble  passage  at  the  out¬ 
set: 


246 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


During  the  preparation  of  this  book  the  writer  received 
from  his  uncle,  a  veteran  army  officer  living  in  Dresden, 
a  brief  note  containing  the  following  laconic  record: 

“1793,  your  great-grandfather  at  Kostheim. 

“1815,  your  grandfather  at  Liegnitz. 

“  1870,  myself — all  severely  wounded  by  French  bullets. 

“1914,  my  son,  captain  in  the  6th  Regiment  of  Dra¬ 
goons. 

“Four  generations  obliged  to  fight  the  French !” 

When  the  writer  turns  to  his  American  friends  of 
French  descent,  he  finds  there  similar  records,  and  often 
even  greater  sorrow,  for  death  has  come  to  many  of  them. 
In  Europe  their  families  and  his  have  looked  upon  each 
other  as  enemies  for  generations,  while  a  few  years  in 
the  clarifying  atmosphere  of  America  have  made  friends 
of  former  Frenchmen,  Germans,  Russians,  and  English¬ 
men. 

Jointly  they  pray  that  the  present  war  may  not  be 
carried  to  such  a  pass  that  an  early  and  honorable  peace 
becomes  impossible  for  any  one  of  these  great  nations. 
Is  it  asking  too  much  that  America  may  be  vouchsafed 
in  not  too  distant  a  future  to  do  for  their  respective 
native  lands  what  the  American  institutions  have  done 
for  them  individually,  help  them  to  regard  each  other 
at  their  true  worth,  unblinded  by  traditional  hatred  or 
fiery  passion? 

It  is  in  the  spirit  of  this  statement  that  we 
Americans  should  act.  We  are  a  people  different 
from,  but  akin,  to  all  the  nations  of  Europe.  We 
should  feel  a  real  friendship  for  each  of  the  con¬ 
testing  powers  and  a  real  desire  to  work  so  as  to 
secure  justice  for  each.  This  cannot  be  done  by 


SUMMING  UP 


247 


preserving  a  tame  and  spiritless  neutrality  which 
treats  good  and  evil  on  precisely  the  same  basis. 
Such  a  neutrality  never  has  enabled  and  never 
will  enable  any  nation  to  do  a  great  work  for 
righteousness.  Our  true  course  should  be  to  judge 
each  nation  on  its  conduct,  unhesitatingly  to  an¬ 
tagonize  every  nation  that  does  ill  as  regards  the 
point  on  which  it  does  ill,  and  equally  without 
hesitation  to  act,  as  cool-headed  and  yet  generous 
wisdom  may  dictate,  so  as  disinterestedly  to  fur¬ 
ther  the  welfare  of  all. 

One  of  the  greatest  of  international  duties 
ought  to  be  the  protection  of  small,  highly  civi¬ 
lized,  well-behaved,  and  self-respecting  states  from 
oppression  and  conquest  by  their  powerful  mili¬ 
tary  neighbors.  Such  nations  as  Belgium,  Hol¬ 
land,  Switzerland,  Uruguay,  Denmark,  Norway, 
and  Sweden  play  a  great  and  honorable  part  in 
the  development  of  civilization.  The  subjugation 
of  any  one  of  them  is  a  crime  against,  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  any  one  of  them  is  a  loss  to,  mankind. 

I  feel  in  the  strongest  way  that  we  should 
have  interfered,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  the 
most  emphatic  diplomatic  protest  and  at  the 
very  outset — and  then  by  whatever  further  action 
was  necessary — in  regard  to  the  violation  of  the 
neutrality  of  Belgium ;  for  this  act  was  the  earliest 
and  the  most  important  and,  in  its  consequences, 
the  most  ruinous  of  all  the  violations  and  offenses 


248 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


against  treaties  committed  by  any  combatant 
during  the  war.  But  it  was  not  the  only  one. 
The  Japanese  and  English  forces  not  long  after 
violated  Chinese  neutrality  in  attacking  Kiao- 
Chau.  It  has  been  alleged  and  not  denied  that 
the  British  ship  Highflyer  sunk  the  Kaiser  Wilhelm, 
der  Grosse  in  neutral  Spanish  waters,  this  being 
also  a  violation  of  the  Hague  conventions;  and 
on  October  10th  the  German  government  issued 
an  official  protest  about  alleged  violations  of  the 
Geneva  convention  by  the  French.  Furthermore, 
the  methods  employed  in  strewing  portions  of 
the  seas  with  floating  mines  have  been  such  as  to 
warrant  the  most  careful  investigation  by  any 
neutral  nations  which  treat  neutrality  pacts  and 
Hague  conventions  as  other  than  merely  dead 
letters.  Not  a  few  offenses  have  been  committed 
against  our  own  people. 

If,  instead  of  observing  a  timid  and  spiritless 
neutrality,  we  had  lived  up  to  our  obligations  by 
taking  action  in  all  of  these  cases  without  regard 
to  which  power  it  was  that  was  alleged  to  have 
done  wrong,  we  would  have  followed  the  only 
course  that  would  both  have  told  for  world  right¬ 
eousness  and  have  served  our  own  self-respect. 
The  course  actually  followed  by  Messrs.  Wilson, 
Bryan,  and  Daniels  has  been  to  permit  our  own 
power  for  self-defense  steadily  to  diminish  while 
at  the  same  time  refusing  to  do  what  we  were 


SUMMING  UP 


249 


solemnly  bound  to  do  in  order  to  protest  against 
wrong  and  to  render  some  kind  of  aid  to  weak 
nations  that  had  been  wronged.  Inasmuch  as,  in 
the  first  and  greatest  and  the  most  ruinous  case 
of  violation  of  neutral  rights  and  of  international 
morality,  this  nation,  under  the  guidance  of  Messrs. 
Wilson  and  Bryan,  kept  timid  silence  and  dared 
not  protest,  it  would  be — and  is — an  act  of  de¬ 
liberate  bad  faith  to  protest  only  as  regards  subse¬ 
quent  and  less  important  violations.  Of  course,  if, 
as  a  people,  we  frankly  take  the  ground  that  our 
actions  are  based  upon  nothing  whatever  but  our 
own  selfish  and  short-sighted  interest,  it  is  pos¬ 
sible  to  protest  only  against  violations  of  neu¬ 
trality  that  at  the  moment  unfavorably  affect  our 
own  interests.  Inaction  is  often  itself  the  most 
offensive  form  of  action;  the  administration  has 
persistently  refused  to  live  up  to  the  solemn  na¬ 
tional  obligations  to  strive  to  protect  other  un¬ 
offending  nations  from  wrong;  and  this  conduct 
adds  a  peculiar  touch  of  hypocrisy  to  the  action 
taken  at  the  same  time  in  signing  a  couple  of  score 
of  all-inclusive  arbitration  treaties  pretentiously 
heralded  as  serving  world  righteousness.  If  we 
had  acted  as  we  ought  to  have  acted  regarding 
Belgium  we  could  then  with  a  clear  conscience 
have  made  effective  protest  regarding  every  other 
case  of  violation  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  or  of 
offenses  committed  by  the  belligerents  against  one 


250 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


another  or  against  us  in  violation  of  the  Hague 
conventions.  Moreover,  the  attitude  of  the  ad¬ 
ministration  has  not  even  placated  the  powers 
it  was  desired  to  please.  Thanks  to  its  action, 
the  United  States  during  the  last  five  months  has 
gained  neither  the  good-will  nor  the  respect  of 
any  of  the  combatants.  On  the  contrary,  it  has 
steadily  grown  rather  more  disliked  and  rather 
less  respected  by  all  of  them. 

In  facing  a  difficult  and  critical  situation,  any 
administration  is  entitled  to  a  free  hand  until  it 
has  had  time  to  develop  the  action  which  it  con¬ 
siders  appropriate,  for  often  there  is  more  than 
one  way  in  which  it  is  possible  to  take  efficient 
action.  But  when  so  much  time  has  passed, 
either  without  action  or  with  only  mischievous 
action,  as  gravely  to  compromise  both  the  honor 
and  the  interest  of  the  country,  then  it  becomes 
a  duty  for  self-respecting  citizens  to  whom  their 
country  is  dear  to  speak  out.  From  the  very 
outset  I  felt  that  the  administration  was  following 
a  wrong  course.  But  no  action  of  mine  could 
make  it  take  the  right  course,  and  there  was  a 
possibility  that  there  was  some  object  aside  from 
political  advantage  in  the  course  followed.  I  kept 
silence  as  long  as  silence  was  compatible  with 
regard  for  the  national  honor  and  welfare.  I 
spoke  only  wrhen  it  became  imperative  to  speak 
under  penalty  of  tame  acquiescence  in  tame  fail- 


SUMMING  UP 


251 


ure  to  perform  national  duty.  It  has  become 
evident  that  the  administration  has  had  no  plan 
whatever  save  the  dexterous  avoidance  of  all  re¬ 
sponsibility  and  therefore  of  all  duty,  and  the 
effort  to  persuade  our  people  as  a  whole  that  this 
inaction  was  for  their  interest — combined  with 
other  less  openly  expressed  and  less  worthy  efforts 
of  purely  political  type. 

There  is  therefore  no  longer  any  reason  for 
failure  to  point  out  that  if  the  President  and  Sec¬ 
retary  of  State  had  been  thoroughly  acquainted 
in  advance,  as  of  course  they  ought  to  have  been 
acquainted,  with  the  European  situation,  and  if 
they  had  possessed  an  intelligent  and  resolute 
purpose  squarely  to  meet  their  heavy  responsi¬ 
bilities  and  thereby  to  serve  the  honor  of  this 
country  and  the  interest  of  mankind,  they  would 
have  taken  action  on  July  29th,  30th,  or  31st,  cer¬ 
tainly  not  later  than  August  1st.  On  such  oc¬ 
casions  there  is  a  peculiar  applicability  in  the  old 
proverb:  Nine  tenths  of  wisdom  consists  in  being 
wise  in  time.  If  those  responsible  for  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  our  foreign  affairs  had  been  content  to 
dwell  in  a  world  of  fact  instead  of  a  world  of  third- 
rate  fiction,  they  would  have  understood  that  at 
such  a  time  of  world  crisis  it  was  an  unworthy 
avoidance  of  duty  to  fuss  with  silly  little  all- 
inclusive  arbitration  treaties  when  the  need  of 
the  day  demanded  that  they  devote  all  their 


252 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


energies  to  the  terrible  problems  of  the  day. 
They  would  have  known  that  a  German  invasion 
of  Switzerland  was  possible  but  improbable  and 
a  German  invasion  of  Belgium  overwhelmingly 
probable.  They  would  have  known  that  vigor¬ 
ous  action  by  the  United  States  government, 
taken  with  such  entire  good  faith  as  to  make  it 
evident  that  it  was  in  the  interest  of  Belgium  and 
not  in  the  interest  of  France  and  England,  and 
that  if  there  was  occasion  it  would  be  taken 
against  France  and  England  as  quickly  as  against 
Germany,  might  very  possibly  have  resulted  in 
either  putting  a  stop  to  the  war  or  in  localizing 
and  narrowly  circumscribing  its  area.  It  is,  of 
course,  possible  that  the  action  would  have  failed 
of  its  immediate  purpose.  But  even  in  that  case 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  would  have  been 
efficient  as  a  check  upon  the  subsequent  wrongs 
committed. 

Nor  was  the  opportunity  for  action  limited  in 
time.  Even  if  the  administration  had  failed  thus 
to  act  at  the  outset  of  the  war,  the  protests 
officially  made  both  by  the  German  Emperor  and 
by  the  Belgian  government  to  the  President  as 
to  alleged  misconduct  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
war  not  only  gave  him  warrant  for  action  but  re¬ 
quired  him  to  act.  Meanwhile,  from  the  moment 
when  the  war  was  declared,  it  became  inexcus¬ 
able  of  the  administration  not  to  take  immediate 


SUMMING  UP 


253 


steps  to  put  the  navy  into  efficient  shape,  and  at 
least  to  make  our  military  forces  on  land  more  re¬ 
spectable.  It  is  possible  not  to  justify  but  to  ex¬ 
plain  the  action  of  the  administration  in  using  the 
navy  for  the  sixteen  months  prior  to  this  war  in 
such  a  way  as  greatly  to  impair  its  efficiency;  for 
of  course  when  the  President  selected  Mr.  Daniels 
as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  he  showed,  on  the  sup¬ 
position  that  he  was  not  indifferent  to  its  welfare, 
an  entire  ignorance  of  what  that  welfare  demanded ; 
and  therefore  the  failure  to  keep  the  navy  efficient 
may  have  been  due  at  first  to  mere  inability  to 
exercise  foresight.  But  with  war  impending,  such 
failure  to  exercise  foresight  became  inexcusable. 
None  of  the  effective  fighting  craft  are  of  any 
real  use  so  far  as  Mexico  is  concerned.  The  navy 
should  at  once  have  been  assembled  in  northern 
waters,  either  in  the  Atlantic  or  the  Pacific,  and 
immediate  steps  taken  to  bring  it  to  the  highest 
point  of  efficiency. 

It  is  because  I  believe  our  attitude  should  be 
one  of  sincere  good-will  toward  all  nations  that  I 
so  strongly  feel  that  we  should  endeavor  to  work 
for  a  league  of  peace  among  all  nations  rather 
than  trust  to  alliances  with  any  particular  group. 
Moreover,  alliances  are  very  shifty  and  uncer¬ 
tain.  Within  twenty  years  England  has  regarded 
France  as  her  immediately  dangerous  opponent; 
within  ten  years  she  has  felt  that  Russia  was  the 


254 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


one  power  against  which  she  must  at  all  costs 
guard  herself;  and  during  the  same  period  there 
have  been  times  when  Belgium  has  hated  England 
with  a  peculiar  fervor.  Alliances  must  be  based 
on  self-interest  and  must  continually  shift.  But 
in  such  a  world  league  as  that  of  which  we  speak 
and  dream,  the  test  would  be  conduct  and  not 
merely  selfish  interest,  and  so  there  would  be  no 
shifting  of  policy. 

It  is  not  yet  opportune  to  discuss  in  detail  the 
exact  method  by  which  the  nations  of  the  world 
shall  put  the  collective  strength  of  civilization 
behind  the  purpose  of  civilization  to  do  right, 
using  as  an  instrumentality  for  peace  such  a 
world  league.  I  have  in  the  last  chapter  given 
the  bare  outline  of  such  a  plan.  Probably  at  the 
outset  it  would  be  an  absolute  impossibility  to 
devise  a  non-national  or  purely  international 
police  force  which  would  be  effective  in  a  great 
crisis.  The  prime  necessity  is  that  all  the  great 
nations  should  agree  in  good  faith  to  use  their 
combined  warlike  strength  to  coerce  any  nation, 
whichever  one  it  may  be,  that  declines  to  abide 
the  decision  of  some  competent  international  tri¬ 
bunal. 

Our  business  is  to  create  the  beginnings  of  in¬ 
ternational  order  out  of  the  world  of  nations  as 
these  nations  actually  exist.  We  do  not  have  to 
deal  with  a  world  of  pacificists  and  therefore  we 


SUMMING  UP 


255 


must  proceed  on  the  assumption  that  treaties  will 
never  acquire  sanctity  until  nations  are  ready  to 
seal  them  with  their  blood.  We  are  not  striving 
for  peace  in  heaven.  That  is  not  our  affair.  What 
we  were  bidden  to  strive  for  is  “peace  on  earth 
and  good-will  toward  men.”  To  fulfil  this  in¬ 
junction  it  is  necessary  to  treat  the  earth  as  it  is 
and  men  as  they  are,  as  an  indispensable  pre¬ 
requisite  to  making  the  earth  a  better  place  in 
which  to  live  and  men  better  fit  to  live  in  it.  It 
is  inexcusable  moral  culpability  on  our  part  to 
pretend  to  carry  out  this  injunction  in  such  fashion 
as  to  nullify  it;  and  this  we  do  if  we  make  believe 
that  the  earth  is  what  it  is  not  and  if  our  profes¬ 
sions  of  bringing  good-will  toward  men  are  in 
actual  practice  shown  to  be  empty  shams.  Peace 
congresses,  peace  parades,  the  appointment  and 
celebration  of  days  of  prayer  for  peace,  and  the 
like,  which  result  merely  in  giving  the  participants 
the  feeling  that  they  have  accomplished  some¬ 
thing  and  are  therefore  to  be  excused  from  hard, 
practical  work  for  righteousness,  are  empty 
shams.  Treaties  such  as  the  recent  all-inclusive 
arbitration  treaties  are  worse  than  empty  shams 
and  convict  us  as  a  nation  of  moral  culpability 
when  our  representatives  sign  them  at  the  same 
time  that  they  refuse  to  risk  anything  to  make 
good  the  signatures  we  have  already  affixed  to 
the  Hague  conventions. 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


256 

Moderate  and  sensible  treaties  which  mean 
something  and  which  can  and  will  be  enforced 
mark  a  real  advance  for  the  human  race.  As 
has  been  well  said:  “It  is  our  business  to  make 
no  treaties  which  we  are  not  ready  to  maintain 
with  all  our  resources,  for  every  such  ‘scrap  of 
paper’  is  like  a  forged  check — an  assault  on  our 
credit  in  the  world.”  Promises  that  are  idly 
given  and  idly  broken  represent  profound  detri¬ 
ment  to  the  morality  of  nations.  Until  no  promise 
is  idly  entered  into  and  until  promises  that  have 
once  been  made  are  kept,  at  no  matter  what  cost 
of  risk  and  effort  and  positive  loss,  just  so  long 
will  distrust  and  suspicion  and  wrong-doing  rack 
the  world.  No  honest  lawyer  will  hesitate  to 
advise  his  client  against  signing  a  contract  either 
detrimental  to  his  interests  or  impossible  of  ful¬ 
filment;  and  the  individual  who  signs  such  a  con¬ 
tract  at  once  makes  himself  either  an  object  of 
suspicion  to  sound-headed  men  or  else  an  object 
of  derision  to  all  men.  One  of  the  stock  jokes  in 
the  comic  columns  of  the  newspapers  refers  to 
the  man  who  swears  off  or  takes  the  pledge,  or 
makes  an  indefinite  number  of  good  resolutions 
on  New  Year’s  Day,  and  fails  to  keep  his  pledge 
or  promise  or  resolution;  this  was  one  of  Mark 
Twain’s  favorite  subjects  for  derision.  The  man 
who  continually  makes  new  promises  without 
living  up  to  those  he  has  already  made,  and  who 


SUMMING  UP 


257 


takes  pledges  which  he  breaks,  is  rightly  treated 
as  an  object  for  contemptuous  fun.  The  nation 
which  behaves  in  like  manner  deserves  no  higher 
consideration. 

The  conduct  of  President  Wilson  and  Secretary 
Bryan  in  signing  these  all-inclusive  treaties  at  the 
same  time  that  they  have  kept  silent  about  the 
breaking  of  the  Hague  conventions  has  repre¬ 
sented  the  kind  of  wrong-doing  to  this  nation 
that  would  be  represented  in  private  life  by  the 
conduct  of  the  individuals  who  sign  such  con¬ 
tracts  as  those  mentioned.  The  administration 
has  looked  on  without  a  protest  while  the  Hague 
conventions  have  been  tom  up  and  thrown  to 
the  wind.  It  has  watched  the  paper  structure 
of  good-will  collapse  without  taking  one  step  to 
prevent  it;  and  yet  foolish  pacificists,  the  very 
men  who  in  the  past  have  been  most  vociferous 
about  international  morality,  have  praised  it  for 
this  position.  The  assertion  that  our  neutrality 
carries  with  it  the  obligation  to  be  silent  when 
our  own  Hague  conventions  are  destroyed  repre¬ 
sents  an  active  step  against  the  peace  of  righteous¬ 
ness.  The  only  way  to  show  that  our  faith  in 
public  law  was  real  was  to  protest  against  the  as¬ 
sault  on  international  morality  implied  in  the 
invasion  of  Belgium. 

Unless  some  one  at  some  time  is  ready  to  take 
some  chance  for  the  sake  of  internationalism,  that 


258 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


is  of  international  morality,  it  will  remain  what  it 
is  to-day,  an  object  of  derision  to  aggressive  na¬ 
tions.  Even  if  nothing  more  than  an  emphatic 
protest  had  been  made  against  what  was  done 
in  Belgium — it  is  not  at  this  time  necessary  for 
me  to  state  exactly  what,  in  my  judgment,  ought 
to  have  been  done — the  foundations  would  have 
been  laid  for  an  effective  world  opinion  against 
international  cynicism.  Pacificists  claim  that 
we  have  acted  so  as  to  preserve  the  good-will 
of  Europe  and  to  exercise  a  guiding  influence  in 
the  settlement  of  the  war.  This  is  an  idea  which 
appeals  to  the  thoughtless,  for  it  gratifies  our  de¬ 
sire  to  keep  out  of  trouble  and  also  our  vanity  by 
the  hope  that  wTe  shall  do  great  things  with  small 
difficulty.  It  may  or  may  not  be  that  the  settle¬ 
ment  will  finally  be  made  by  a  peace  congress  in 
which  the  President  of  the  United  States  will  hold 
titular  position  of  headship.  But  under  conditions 
as  they  are  now  the  real  importance  of  the  Presi¬ 
dent  ti  such  a  peace  congress  will  be  comparable 
to  tb£  real  importance  of  the  drum-major  when  he 
walks  at  the  head  of  a  regiment.  Small  boys  re¬ 
gard  the  drum-major  as  much  more  important 
than  the  regimental  commander ;  and  the  pacificist 
grown-ups  who  applaud  peace  congresses  some¬ 
times  show  as  regards  the  drum-majors  of  these 
congresses  the  same  touching  lack  of  insight  which 
small  boys  show  toward  real  drum-majors.  As  a 


SUMMING  UP 


259 


matter  of  fact,  if  the  United  States  enters  such  a 
congress  with  nothing  but  a  record  of  comfortable 
neutrality  or  tame  acquiescence  in  violated  Hague 
conventions,  plus  an  array  of  vague  treaties  with 
no  relation  to  actual  facts,  it  will  be  allowed  to 
fill  the  position  of  international  drum-major  and 
of  nothing  more;  and  even  this  position  it  will  be 
allowed  to  fill  only  so  long  as  it  suits  the  con¬ 
venience  of  the  men  who  have  done  the  actual 
fighting.  The  warring  nations  will  settle  the 
issues  in  accordance  with  their  own  strength  and 
position.  Under  such  conditions  we  shall  be 
treated  as  we  deserve  to  be  treated,  as  a  nation 
of  people  who  mean  well  feebly,  whose  words  are 
not  backed  by  deeds,  who  like  to  prattle  about 
both  their  own  strength  and  their  own  righteous¬ 
ness,  but  who  are  unwilling  to  run  the  risks  with¬ 
out  which  righteousness  cannot  be  effectively 
served,  and  who  are  also  unwilling  to  undergo 
the  toil  of  intelligent  and  hard-working  prepara¬ 
tion  without  which  strength  when  tested  proves 
weakness. 

In  this  world  it  is  as  true  of  nations  as  of  in¬ 
dividuals  that  the  things  best  worth  having  are 
rarely  to  be  obtained  in  cheap  fashion.  There 
is  nothing  easier  than  to  meet  in  congresses  and 
conventions  and  pass  resolutions  in  favor  of 
virtue.  There  is  also  nothing  more  futile  unless 
those  passing  the  resolutions  are  willing  to  make 


26o 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


them  good  by  labor  and  endurance  and  active 
courage  and  self-denial.  Readers  of  John  Hay’s 
poems  will  remember  the  scorn  therein  expressed 
for  those  who  “resoloot  till  the  cows  come  home,” 
but  do  not  put  effort  back  of  their  words.  Those 
who  would  teach  our  people  that  service  can  be 
rendered  or  greatness  attained  in  easy,  comfort¬ 
able  fashion,  without  facing  risk,  hardship,  and 
difficulty,  are  teaching  what  is  false  and  mis¬ 
chievous.  Courage,  hard  work,  self-mastery,  and 
intelligent  effort  are  all  essential  to  successful  life. 
As  a  rule,  the  slothful  ease  of  life  is  in  inverse 
proportion  to  its  true  success.  This  is  true  of  the 
private  lives  of  farmers,  business  men,  and  me¬ 
chanics.  It  is  no  less  true  of  the  life  of  the  nation 
which  is  made  up  of  these  farmers,  business  men, 
and  mechanics. 

As  yet,  as  events  have  most  painfully  shown, 
there  is  nothing  to  be  expected  by  any  nation  in  a 
great  crisis  from  anything  except  its  own  strength. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  is  criminal  in  the 
United  States  not  to  prepare.  Critics  have 
stated  that  in  advocating  universal  military 
service  on  the  Swiss  plan  in  this  country,  I  am 
advocating  militarism.  I  am  not  concerned  with 
mere  questions  of  terminology.  The  plan  I  ad¬ 
vocate  would  be  a  corrective  of  every  evil  which 
we  associate  with  the  name  of  militarism.  It 
would  tend  for  order  and  self-respect  among  our 


SUMMING  UP 


261 

people.  Not  the  smallest  evil  among  the  many 
evils  that  exist  in  America  is  due  to  militarism. 
Save  in  the  crisis  of  the  Civil  War  there  has  been 
no  militarism  in  the  United  States  and  the  only 
militarist  President  we  have  ever  had  was  Abraham 
Lincoln.  Universal  service  of  the  Swiss  type 
would  be  educational  in  the  highest  and  best 
sense  of  the  word.  In  Switzerland,  as  compared 
with  the  United  States,  there  are,  relatively  to 
the  population,  only  one  tenth  the  number  of 
murders  and  of  crimes  of  violence.  Doubtless 
other  causes  have  contributed  to  this,  but  doubt¬ 
less  also  the  intelligent  collective  training  of  the 
Swiss  people  in  habits  of  obedience,  of  self-reliance, 
self-restraint  and  endurance,  of  applied  patriot¬ 
ism  and  collective  action,  has  been  a  very  potent 
factor  in  producing  this  good  result. 

As  I  have  already  said,  I  know  of  my  own 
knowledge  that  two  nations  which  on  certain  occa¬ 
sions  were  obliged,  perhaps  as  much  by  our  fault 
as  by  theirs,  to  take  into  account  the  question 
of  possible  war  with  the  United  States,  planned 
in  such  event  to  seize  the  Panama  Canal  and 
to  take  and  ransom  or  destroy  certain  of  our 
great  coast  cities.  They  planned  this  partly  in 
the  belief  that  our  navy  would  intermittently  be 
allowed  to  become  extremely  inefficient,  just  as 
during  the  last  twenty  months  it  has  become  in¬ 
efficient,  and  partly  in  the  belief  that  our  people 


262 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


are  so  wholly  unmilitary,  and  so  ridden  to  death 
on  the  one  hand  by  foolish  pacificists  and  on  the 
other  by  brutal  materialists  whose  only  God  is 
money,  that  we  would  not  show  ourselves  either 
resolutely  patriotic  or  efficient  even  in  what  be¬ 
lated  action  our  utter  lack  of  preparation  per¬ 
mitted  us  to  take.  I  believe  that  these  nations 
were  and  are  wrong  in  their  estimate  of  the  under¬ 
lying  strength  of  the  American  character.  I  be¬ 
lieve  that  if  war  did  really  come  both  the  ultra¬ 
pacificists,  the  peace-at-any-price  men,  and  the 
merely  brutal  materialists,  who  count  all  else  as 
nothing  compared  to  the  gratification  of  their 
greed  for  gain  or  their  taste  for  ease,  for  pleasure, 
and  for  vacuous  excitement,  would  be  driven 
before  the  gale  of  popular  feeling  as  leaves  are 
driven  through  the  fall  woods.  But  such  aroused 
public  feeling  in  the  actual  event  would  be 
wholly  inadequate  to  make  good  our  failure  to 
prepare. 

We  should  in  all  humility  imitate  not  a  little  of 
the  spirit  so  much  in  evidence  among  the  Germans 
and  the  Japanese,  the  two  nations  which  in 
modem  times  have  shown  the  most  practical  type 
of  patriotism,  the  greatest  devotion  to  the  com¬ 
mon  weal,  the  greatest  success  in  developing  their 
economic  resources  and  abilities  from  within, 
and  the  greatest  far-sightedness  in  safeguarding 
the  country  against  possible  disaster  from  with- 


SUMMING  UP 


263 


out.  In  the  Journal  of  the  Military  Service  In¬ 
stitution  for  the  months  of  November  and  De¬ 
cember  of  the  present  year  will  be  found  a 
quotation  from  a  Japanese  military  paper,  The 
Comrades'  Magazine,  which  displays  an  amount  of 
practical  good  sense  together  with  patriotism  and 
devotion  to  the  welfare  of  the  average  man  which 
could  well  be  copied  by  our  people  and  which  is 
worthy  of  study  by  every  intelligent  American. 
Germany’s  success  in  industrialism  has  been  as 
extraordinary  and  noteworthy  as  her  success  in 
securing  military  efficiency,  and  fundamentally 
has  been  due  to  the  development  of  the  same 
qualities  in  the  nation. 

At  present  the  United  States  does  not  begin  to 
get  adequate  return  in  the  way  of  efficient  prepa¬ 
ration  for  defense  from  the  amount  of  money  ap¬ 
propriated  every  year.  Both  the  executive  and 
Congress  are  responsible  for  this — and  of  course 
this  means  that  the  permanent  and  ultimate  re¬ 
sponsibility  rests  on  the  people.  It  is  really  less  a 
question  of  spending  more  money  than  of  knowing 
how  to  get  the  best  results  for  the  money  that  we 
do  spend.  Most  emphatically  there  should  be  a 
comprehensive  plan  both  for  defense  and  for  ex¬ 
penditure.  The  best  military  and  naval  author¬ 
ities — not  merely  the  senior  officers  but  the  best 
officers — should  be  required  to  produce  compre¬ 
hensive  plans  for  battle-ships,  for  submarines,  for 


264 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


air-ships,  for  proper  artillery,  for  a  more  efficient 
regular  army,  and  for  a  great  popular  reserve 
behind  the  army.  Every  useless  military  post 
should  be  forthwith  abandoned;  and  this  cannot 
be  done  save  by  getting  Congress  to  accept  or 
reject  plans  for  defense  and  expenditure  in  their 
entirety.  If  each  congressman  or  senator  can  put 
in  his  special  plea  for  the  erection  or  retention 
of  a  military  post  for  non-military  reasons,  and 
for  the  promotion  or  favoring  of  some  given  officer 
or  group  of  officers  also  for  non-military  reasons, 
we  can  rest  assured  that  good  results  can  never  be 
obtained.  Here,  again,  what  is  needed  is  not  plans 
by  outsiders  but  the  insistence  by  outsiders  upon 
the  army  and  navy  officers  being  required  to  pro¬ 
duce  the  right  plans,  being  backed  up  when  they 
do  produce  the  right  plans,  and  being  held  to  a 
strict  accountability  for  any  failure,  active  or 
passive,  in  their  duty. 

Moreover,  these  plans  must  be  treated  as  part 
of  the  coherent  policy  of  the  nation  in  interna¬ 
tional  affairs.  With  a  gentleman  like  Mr.  Bryan 
in  the  State  Department  it  may  be  accepted  as 
absolutely  certain  that  we  never  will  have  the 
highest  grade  of  efficiency  in  the  Departments  of 
War  and  of  the  Navy.  With  a  gentleman  like 
Mr.  Daniels  at  the  head  of  the  navy,  it  may  be 
accepted  as  certain  that  the  navy  will  not  be 
brought  to  the  level  of  its  possible  powers.  This 


SUMMING  UP 


265 


means  that  the  people  as  a  whole  must  demand  of 
their  leaders  that  they  treat  seriously  the  navy 
and  army  and  our  foreign  policy. 

The  waste  in  our  navy  and  army  is  very  great. 
This  is  inevitable  as  long  as  we  do  not  discriminate 
against  the  inefficient  and  as  long  as  we  fail  to 
put  a  premium  upon  efficiency.  When  I  was 
President  I  found  out  that  a  very  large  propor¬ 
tion  of  the  old  officers  of  the  army  and  even  of 
the  navy  were  physically  incompetent  to  perform 
many  of  their  duties.  The  public  was  wholly 
indifferent  on  the  subject.  Congress  would  not 
act.  As  a  preliminary,  and  merely  as  a  prelimi¬ 
nary,  I  established  a  regulation  that  before  pro¬ 
motion  officers  should  be  required  to  walk  fifty 
miles  or  ride  one  hundred  miles  in  three  days. 
This  was  in  no  way  a  sufficient  test  of  an  officer’s 
fitness.  It  merely  served  to  rid  the  service  of 
men  whose  unfitness  was  absolutely  ludicrous. 
Yet  in  Congress  and  in  the  newspapers  an  ex¬ 
traordinary  din  was  raised  against  this  test  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  unjust  to  faithful  elderly 
officers !  The  pacificists  promptly  assailed  it  on 
the  ground  that  to  make  the  army  efficient  was  a 
“warlike”  act.  All  kinds  of  philanthropists,  in¬ 
cluding  clergymen  and  college  presidents,  wrote 
me  that  my  action  showed  not  only  callousness  of 
heart  but  also  a  regrettable  spirit  of  militarism. 
Any  officer  who  because  of  failure  to  come  up  to 


266 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


the  test  or  for  other  reasons  was  put  out  of  the 
service  was  certain  to  receive  ardent  congressional 
championship;  and  every  kind  of  pressure  was 
brought  to  bear  on  behalf  of  the  unfit,  while  hardly 
the  slightest  effective  championship  was  given 
the  move  from  any  outside  source.  This  was  be¬ 
cause  public  opinion  was  absolutely  uneducated 
on  the  subject.  In  our  country  the  men  who  in 
time  of  peace  speak  loudest  about  war  are  usually 
the  ultrapacificists  whose  activities  have  been 
shown  to  be  absolutely  futile  for  peace,  but  who 
do  a  little  mischief  by  persuading  a  number  of 
well-meaning  persons  that  preparedness  for  war 
is  unnecessary. 

It  is  not  desirable  that  civilians,  acting  inde¬ 
pendently  of  and  without  the  help  of  military  and 
naval  advisers,  shall  prepare  minute  or  detailed 
plans  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  for  our  national 
defense.  But  civilians  are  competent  to  advocate 
plans  in  outline  exactly  as  I  have  here  advocated 
them.  Moreover,  and  most  important,  they  are 
competent  to  try  to  make  public  opinion  effective 
in  these  matters.  A  democracy  must  have  proper 
leaders.  But  these  leaders  must  be  able  to  appeal 
to  a  proper  sentiment  in  the  democracy.  It  is  the 
prime  duty  of  every  right-thinking  citizen  at  this 
time  to  aid  his  fellow  countrymen  to  understand 
the  need  of  working  wisely  for  peace,  the  folly 
of  acting  unwisely  for  peace,  and,  above  all,  the 


SUMMING  UP  267 

need  of  real  and  thorough  national  preparedness 
against  war. 

Former  Secretary  of  the  Navy  Bonaparte,  in 
one  of  his  admirable  articles,  in  which  he  dis¬ 
cusses  armaments  and  treaties,  has  spoken  as 
follows : 

Indeed,  it  is  so  obviously  impolitic,  on  the  part  of  the 
administration  and  its  party  friends,  to  avow  a  purpose  to 
keep  the  people  in  the  dark  as  to  our  preparedness  (or 
rather  as  to  our  virtually  admitted  unpreparedness)  to 
protect  the  national  interests,  safety,  and  honor,  that  a 
practical  avowal  of  such  purpose  on  their  part  would  seem 
altogether  incredible,  but  for  certain  rather  notorious 
facts  developed  by  our  experience  during  the  last  year 
and  three  quarters. 

It  has  gradually  become  evident,  or,  at  least,  probable 
that  the  mind  (wherever  that  mind  may  be  located)  which 
determines,  or  has,  as  yet,  determined,  our  foreign  policy 
under  President  Wilson,  really  relies  upon  a  timid  neu¬ 
trality  and  innumerable  treaties  of  general  arbitration  as 
sufficient  to  protect  us  from  foreign  aggression;  and  ad¬ 
visedly  wishes  to  keep  us  virtually  unarmed  and  helpless 
to  defend  ourselves,  so  that  a  sense  of  our  weakness  may 
render  us  sufficiently  pusillanimous  to  pocket  all  insults, 
to  submit  to  any  form  of  outrage,  to  resent  no  provocation, 
and  to  abdicate  completely  and  forever  the  dignity  and 
the  duties  of  a  great  nation. 

In  the  absence  of  actual  experience,  a  strong  effort  of 
the  imagination  would  be  required,  at  least  on  the  part  of 
the  writer,  to  conceive  of  anybody’s  not  finding  such  an 
outlook  for  his  country  utterly  intolerable;  but  incredu¬ 
lity  must  yield  to  decisive  proof.  Even  the  votaries  of 


268 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


this  novel  cult  of  cowardice,  however,  are  evidently  com¬ 
pelled  to  recognize  that,  as  yet,  they  constitute  a  very 
small  minority  among  Americans,  and,  for  this  reason, 
they  would  keep  their  fellow  countrymen,  as  far  as  may 
be  practicable,  in  the  dark  as  to  our  national  weakness 
and  our  national  dangers;  they  delight  in  gagging  soldiers 
and  sailors  and,  to  the  extent  of  their  power,  everybody 
else  who  may  speak  with  any  authority,  and,  if  they  could, 
would  shut  out  every  ray  of  light  which  might  aid  public 
opinion  to  see  things  as  they  are. 

•  ••••••• 

There  is  no  room  for  difference  as  to  the  utter  ab¬ 
surdity  of  reliance  on  treaties,  no  matter  how  solemn  or 
writh  whomsoever  made,  as  substitutes  for  proper  arma¬ 
ments  to  assure  the  national  safety;  Belgium’s  fate  stares 
in  the  face  any  one  who  should  even  dream  of  this.  Her 
neutrality  was  established  and  guaranteed,  not  by  one 
treaty  but  by  several  treaties,  not  by  one  power  but  by 
all  the  powers;  yet  she  has  been  completely  ruined  because 
she  relied  upon  these  treaties,  refused  to  violate  them  her¬ 
self  and  tried,  in  good  faith,  to  fulfil  the  obligations  they 
imposed  on  her. 

For  any  public  man,  with  this  really  terrible  object-les¬ 
son  before  his  eyes,  to  seriously  ask  us  to  believe  that  arbi¬ 
tration  treaties  or  Hague  tribunals  or  anything  else  within 
that  order  of  ideas  can  be  trusted  to  take  the  place  of 
preparation  impeaches  either  his  sincerity  or  his  sanity, 
and  impeaches  no  less  obviously  the  common  sense  of  his 
readers  or  hearers. 

A  nation  unable  to  protect  itself  may  have  to  pay  a 
frightful  price  nowadays  as  a  penalty  for  the  misfortune 
of  weakness;  the  Belgians  may  be,  in  a  measure,  consoled 
for  their  misfortune  by  the  world’s  respect  and  sympathy; 
in  the  like  case,  we  should  be  further  and  justly  punished 


SUMMING  UP 


269 


by  the  world’s  unbounded  and  merited  contempt,  for  our 
weakness  would  be  the  fruit  of  our  own  ignominious 
cowardice  and  incredible  folly. 

Secretary  Garrison  in  his  capital  report  says 
that  if  our  outlying  possessions  are  even  insuffi¬ 
ciently  manned  our  mobile  home  army  will  con¬ 
sist  of  less  than  twenty-five  thousand  men,  only 
about  twice  the  size  of  the  police  force  of  New 
York  City.  Yet,  in  the  face  of  this,  certain  news¬ 
paper  editors,  college  presidents,  pacificist  bankers 
and,  I  regret  to  say,  certain  clergymen  and  phi¬ 
lanthropists  enthusiastically  champion  the  atti¬ 
tude  of  President  Wilson  and  Mr.  Bryan  in  refus¬ 
ing  to  prepare  for  war.  As  one  of  them  put  it 
the  other  day:  “The  way  to  prevent  war  is  not 
to  fight.”  Luxembourg  did  not  fight!  Does  this 
gentleman  regard  the  position  of  Luxembourg 
at  this  moment  as  enviable  ?  China  has  not  re¬ 
cently  fought.  Does  the  gentleman  think  that 
China’s  position  is  in  consequence  a  happy  one  ? 
If  advisers  of  this  type,  if  these  college  presidents 
and  clergymen  and  editors  of  organs  of  culture 
and  the  philanthropists  who  give  this  advice  spoke 
only  for  themselves,  if  the  humiliation  and  dis¬ 
grace  were  to  come  only  on  them,  no  one  would 
have  a  right  to  object.  They  have  servile  souls; 
and  if  they  chose  serfdom  of  the  body  for  them¬ 
selves  only,  it  would  be  of  small  consequence  to 
others.  But,  unfortunately,  their  words  have  a 


270 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


certain  effect  upon  this  country;  and  that  effect 
is  intolerably  evil.  Doubtless  it  is  the  influence 
of  these  men  which  is  largely  responsible  for  the 
attitude  of  the  President.  The  President  attacks 
preparedness  in  the  name  of  antimilitarism.  The 
preparedness  we  advocate  is  that  of  Switzerland, 
the  least  militaristic  of  countries.  Autocracy  may 
use  preparedness  for  the  creation  of  an  aggressive 
and  provocative  militarism  that  invites  and  pro¬ 
duces  war ;  but  in  a  democracy  preparedness  means 
security  against  aggression  and  the  best  guarantee 
of  peace.  The  President  in  his  message  has  in 
effect  declared  that  his  theory  of  neutrality,  which 
is  carried  to  the  point  of  a  complete  abandon¬ 
ment  of  the  rights  of  innocent  small  nations,  and 
his  theory  of  non-preparedness,  which  is  carried 
to  the  point  of  gross  national  inefficiency,  are  both 
means  for  securing  to  the  United  States  a  leading 
position  in  bringing  about  peace.  The  position 
he  would  thus  secure  would  be  merely  that  of 
drum-major  at  the  peace  conference;  and  he  would 
do  well  to  remember  that  if  the  peace  that  is 
brought  about  should  result  in  leaving  Belgium’s 
wrongs  unredressed  and  turning  Belgium  over  to 
Germany,  in  enthroning  militarism  as  the  chief 
factor  in  the  modem  world,  and  in  consecrating 
the  violation  of  treaties,  then  the  United  States, 
by  taking  part  in  such  a  conference,  would  have 
rendered  an  evil  service  to  mankind. 


SUMMING  UP 


271 


{ 


At  present  our  navy  is  in  wretched  shape.  Our 
army  is  infinitesimal.  This  large,  rich  republic  is 
far  less  efficient  from  a  military  standpoint  than 
Switzerland,  Holland,  or  Denmark.  In  spite  of 
the  fact  that  the  officers  and  enlisted  men  of  our 
navy  and  army  offer  material  on  the  whole  bet¬ 
ter  than  the  officers  and  men  of  any  other  navy  or 
army,  these  two  services  have  for  so  many  years 
been  neglected  by  Congress,  and  during  the  last 
two  years  have  been  so  mishandled  by  the  adminis¬ 
tration,  that  at  the  present  time  an  energetic  and 
powerful  adversary  could  probably  with  ease  drive 
us  not  only  from  the  Philippines  but  from  Hawaii, 
and  take  possession  of  the  Canal  and  Alaska. 
If  invaded  by  a  serious  army  belonging  to  some 
formidable  Old  World  empire,  we  would  be  for 
many  months  about  as  helpless  as  China;  and, 
as  nowadays  large  armies  can  cross  the  ocean, 
we  might  be  crushed  beyond  hope  of  recuperation 
inside  of  a  decade.  Yet  those  now  at  the  head 
of  public  affairs  refuse  themselves  to  face  facts 
and  seek  to  mislead  the  people  as  to  the  facts. 

President  Wilson  is,  of  course,  fully  and  com¬ 
pletely  responsible  for  Mr.  Bryan.  Mr.  Bryan 
appreciates  this  and  loyally  endeavors  to  serve 
the  President  and  to  come  to  his  defense  at  all 
times.  As  soon  as  President  Wilson  had  an¬ 
nounced  that  there  was  no  need  of  preparations 
to  defend  ourselves,  because  we  loved  everybody 


272 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


and  everybody  loved  us  and  because  our  mission 
was  to  spread  the  gospel  of  peace,  Mr.  Bryan  came 
to  his  support  with  hearty  enthusiasm  and  said: 
‘  ‘  The  President  knows  that  if  this  country  needed 
a  million  men,  and  needed  them  in  a  day,  the  call 
would  go  out  at  sunrise  and  the  sun  would  go 
down  on  a  million  men  in  arms.”  One  of  the 
President’s  stanchest  newspaper  adherents  lost 
its  patience  over  this  utterance  and  remarked: 
“More  foolish  words  than  these  of  the  Secretary 
of  State  were  never  spoken  by  mortal  man  in 
reply  to  a  serious  argument.”  However,  Mr. 
Bryan  had  a  good  precedent,  although  he  probably 
f'ic1  not  know  it.  Pompey,  when  threatened  by 
Caesar,  and  told  that  his  side  was  unprepared, 
responded  that  he  had  only  to  “stamp  his  foot” 
and  legions  would  spring  from  the  ground.  In 
the  actual  event,  the  “stamping”  proved  as  ef¬ 
fectual  against  Caesar  as  Mr.  Bryan’s  “call” 
would  under  like  circumstances.  I  once  heard 
a  Bryanite  senator  put  Mr.  Bryan’s  position 
a  little  more  strongly  than  it  occurred  to  Mr. 
Bryan  himself  to  put  it.  The  senator  in  question 
announced  that  we  needed  no  regular  army,  be¬ 
cause  in  the  event  of  war  “ten  million  freemen 
would  spring  to  arms,  the  equals  of  any  regular 
soldiers  in  the  world.”  I  do  not  question  the 
emotional  or  oratorical  sincerity  either  of  Mr. 
Bryan  or  of  the  senator.  Mr.  Bryan  is  accus- 


SUMMING  UP 


273 


tomed  to  performing  in  vacuo;  and  both  he  and 
President  Wilson,  as  regards  foreign  affairs,  appar¬ 
ently  believe  they  are  living  in  a  world  of  two 
dimensions,  and  not  in  the  actual  workaday  world, 
which  has  three  dimensions.  This  was  equally 
true  of  the  senator  in  question.  If  the  senator’s 
ten  million  men  sprang  to  arms  at  this  moment, 
they  would  have  at  the  outside  some  four  hundred 
thousand  modem  rifles  to  which  to  spring.  Per¬ 
haps  six  hundred  thousand  more  could  spring  to 
squirrel  pieces  and  fairly  good  shotguns.  The  re¬ 
maining  nine  million  men  would  have  to  “spring” 
to  axes,  scythes,  hand-saws,  gimlets,  and  similar 
arms.  As  for  Mr.  Bryan’s  million  men  who  would 
at  sunset  respond  under  arms  to  a  call  made  at 
sunrise,  the  suggestion  is  such  a  mere  rhetorical 
flourish  that  it  is  not  worthy  even  of  humorous 
treatment;  a  high-school  boy  making  such  a 
statement  in  a  theme  would  be  marked  zero  by 
any  competent  master.  But  it  is  an  exceedingly 
serious  thing,  it  is  not  in  the  least  a  humorous 
thing,  that  the  man  making  such  a  statement 
should  be  the  chief  adviser  of  the  President  in  in¬ 
ternational  matters,  and  should  hold  the  highest 
office  in  the  President’s  gift. 

Nor  is  Mr.  Bryan  in  any  way  out  of  sympathy 
with  President  Wilson  in  this  matter.  The  Presi¬ 
dent,  unlike  Mr.  Bryan,  uses  good  English  and  does 
not  say  things  that  are  on  their  face  ridiculous. 


274 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


Unfortunately,  his  cleverness  of  style  and  his  en¬ 
tire  refusal  to  face  facts  apparently  make  him  be¬ 
lieve  that  he  really  has  dismissed  and  done  away 
with  ugly  realities  whenever  he  has  uttered  some 
pretty  phrase  about  them.  This  year  we  are  in 
the  presence  of  a  crisis  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
In  the  terrible  whirlwind  of  war  all  the  great 
nations  of  the  world,  save  the  United  States  and 
Italy,  are  facing  the  supreme  test  of  their  history. 
All  of  the  pleasant  and  alluring  but  futile  theories 
of  the  pacificists,  all  the  theories  enunciated  in 
the  peace  congresses  of  the  past  twenty  years, 
have  vanished  at  the  first  sound  of  the  drumming 
guns.  The  work  of  all  the  Hague  conventions, 
and  all  the  arbitration  treaties,  neutrality  trea¬ 
ties,  and  peace  treaties  of  the  last  twenty  years 
has  been  swept  before  the  gusts  of  war  like  with¬ 
ered  leaves  before  a  November  storm.  In  this 
great  crisis  the  stern  and  actual  facts  have  shown 
that  the  fate  of  each  nation  depends  not  in  the 
least  upon  any  elevated  international  aspirations 
to  which  it  has  given  expression  in  speech  or 
treaty,  but  on  practical  preparation,  on  intensity 
of  patriotism,  on  grim  endurance,  and  on  the  pos¬ 
session  of  the  fighting  edge.  Yet,  in  the  face  of  all 
this,  the  President  of  the  United  States  sends  in  a 
message  dealing  with  national  defense,  which  is 
filled  with  prettily  phrased  platitudes  of  the  kind 
applauded  at  the  less  important  type  of  peace 


SUMMING  UP 


275 


congress,  and  with  sentences  cleverly  turned  to 
conceal  from  the  average  man  the  fact  that  the 
President  has  no  real  advice  to  give,  no  real  policy 
to  propose.  There  is  just  one  point  as  to  which  he 
does  show  real  purpose  for  a  tangible  end.  He 
dwells  eagerly  upon  the  hope  that  we  may  obtain 
“the  opportunity  to  counsel  and  obtain  peace  in 
the  world”  among  the  warring  nations  and  ad¬ 
jures  us  not  to  jeopardize  this  chance  (for  the 
President  to  take  part  in  the  peace  negotiations) 
by  at  this  time  making  any  preparations  for  self- 
defense.  In  effect,  we  are  asked  not  to  put  our 
own  shores  in  defensible  condition  lest  the  Presi¬ 
dent  may  lose  the  chance  to  be  at  the  head  of  the 
congress  which  may  compose  the  differences  of 
Europe.  In  effect,  he  asks  us  not  to  build  up  the 
navy,  not  to  provide  for  an  efficient  citizen  army, 
not  to  get  ammunition  for  our  guns  and  torpedoes 
for  our  torpedo-tubes,  lest  somehow  or  other  this 
may  make  the  President  of  the  United  States  an 
unacceptable  mediator  between  Germany  and 
Great  Britain!  It  is  an  honorable  ambition  for 
the  President  to  desire  to  be  of  use  in  bringing 
about  peace  in  Europe;  but  only  on  condition 
that  the  peace  thus  brought  is  the  peace  of  right¬ 
eousness,  and  only  on  condition  that  he  does  not 
sacrifice  this  country’s  vital  interests  for  a  clatter 
of  that  kind  of  hollow  applause  through  which 
runs  an  undertone  of  sinister  jeering.  He  must 


276 


THE  WORLD  WAR 


not  sacrifice  to  this  ambition  the  supreme  inter¬ 
est  of  the  American  people.  Nor  must  he  be¬ 
lieve  that  the  possibility  of  his  being  umpire  will 
have  any  serious  effect  on  the  terrible  war  game 
that  is  now  being  played ;  the  outcome  of  the  game 
will  depend  upon  the  prowess  of  the  players.  No 
gain  will  come  to  our  nation,  or  to  any  other  na¬ 
tion,  if  President  Wilson  permits  himself  to  be 
deluded  concerning  the  part  the  United  States  may 
take  in  the  promotion  of  European  peace. 

Peace  in  Europe  will  be  made  by  the  warring 
nations.  They  and  they  alone  will  in  fact  deter¬ 
mine  the  terms  of  settlement.  The  United  States 
may  be  used  as  a  convenient  means  of  getting 
together;  but  that  is  all.  If  the  nations  of  Europe 
desire  peace  and  our  assistance  in  securing  it,  it 
will  be  because  they  have  fought  as  long  as  they 
will  or  can.  It  will  not  be  because  they  regard  us 
as  having  set  a  spiritual  example  to  them  by 
sitting  idle,  uttering  cheap  platitudes,  and  picking 
up  their  trade,  while  they  have  poured  out  their 
blood  like  water  in  support  of  the  ideals  in  which, 
with  all  their  hearts  and  souls,  they  believe.  For 
us  to  assume  superior  virtue  in  the  face  of  the 
war-worn  nations  of  the  Old  World  will  not  make 
us  more  acceptable  as  mediators  among  them. 
Such  self-consciousness  on  our  part  will  not  im¬ 
press  the  nations  who  have  sacrificed  and  are 
sacrificing  all  that  is  dearest  to  them  in  the  world, 


SUMMING  UP 


277 


for  the  things  that  they  believe  to  be  the  noblest 
in  the  world.  The  storm  that  is  raging  in  Europe 
at  this  moment  is  terrible  and  evil ;  but  it  is  also 
grand  and  noble.  Untried  men  who  live  at  ease 
will  do  well  to  remember  that  there  is  a  certain 
sublimity  even  in  Milton’s  defeated  archangel,  but 
none  whatever  in  the  spirits  who  kept  neutral, 
who  remained  at  peace,  and  dared  side  neither 
with  hell  nor  with  heaven.  They  will  also  do 
well  to  remember  that  when  heroes  have  battled 
together,  and  have  wrought  good  and  evil,  and 
when  the  time  has  come  out  of  the  contest  to  get 
all  the  good  possible  and  to  prevent  as  far  as  pos¬ 
sible  the  evil  from  being  made  permanent,  they 
will  not  be  influenced  much  by  the  theory  that 
soft  and  short-sighted  outsiders  have  put  them¬ 
selves  in  better  condition  to  stop  war  abroad  by 
making  themselves  defenseless  at  home. 


. 


- 


k  *  -  • 


^  t 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


